Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at Seven o'Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Recruitment, Birmingham

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the shortage of police officers in Birmingham; and, in view of the fact that the burden of duties on the existing force has become heavy and exacting, if a special recruiting effort will receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am aware of the shortage of police in Birmingham, and I should be prepared to consider any proposals put forward by the police authority for a special recruiting effort. I feel, however, that any such special effort might more profitably be deferred until after the publication of the Oaksey Committee's report.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the Home Secretary aware that in Birmingham we have one of the finest police forces in Great Britain; and will he do everything he possibly can to strengthen the force so that it may continue to function at the high level of efficiency it has always maintained?

Mr. Ede: I have no reason to feel other than confidence in the Birmingham Police Force. I have discussed this problem with officers of all ranks in the

force, and I am hopeful that when the Oaksey Committee's report is published we may be able to take steps that will enable the force to be brought up to strength.

Experiment, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the police experiment in the prevention and detection of crime which has been carried out in the City of Aberdeen with great success; and if he will consider steps to have this system copied or adapted in other places for the same useful purposes.

Mr. Ede: Experiments on these lines have been conducted in a number of police forces in England and Wales, and a working party consisting of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for England and Wales, and a number of chief constables from both countries recently reported on the system to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. A copy of the report has been transmitted to the Committee on Police Pay and Conditions of Service, and it is proposed to await the report of that committee before further action is considered.

Mr. Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply.

Strength, Hornsey

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much is the police force under strength in the Hornsey sub-division of the Metropolitan Police district.

Mr. Ede: This sub-division is 73 below its full establishment of 221.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when this deplorable state of affairs is likely to be remedied?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. As I said to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon), we must now wait until we get the Oaksey Committee report before we can expect much improvement.

Housing, London

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communications have been sent by him


or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to local authorities in Greater London regarding the housing needs of the Metropolitan Police Force.

Mr. Ede: The Commissioner of Police approached local authorities in the London area in September, 1945, when they made it clear that they were not prepared to give any general priority in housing to the police and suggested that the best course would be for superintendents of police to discuss particular problems with the appropriate local authorities. That course has been followed, but the Commissioner has recently again taken up the general question with the London County Council, and has also made a further approach to all Metropolitan boroughs asking for their co-operation.

Mr. Gammans: But has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to find out under what appalling conditions many of the police are living, and the number that are separated from their families; and does he realise that this is probably the largest single factor why he cannot get men to go into the police force, or when they have gone in to remain in the force?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, I have made myself acquainted with that problem, and the situation is very regrettable. I agree that this is one of the main causes, if not the main cause, for failure to retain some suitable recruits.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPEN PRISON, THEYDON GARNON

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Secretary for the Home Department if he has any statement to make in connection with the use of Hill Hall, Theydon Garnon, as a prison without bars.

Mr. Ede: Hill Hall, Theydon Garnon, has been taken over as a training centre for women prisoners, but it will not be open for some time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

German (Interrogation)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Rolf Merz, of Ulm/Donau, Wuerttemburg,

United States zone, Germany, advised the immigration officer at Dover that he was on a visit to a Bolton family; if Mr. Merz's documents were in order to enable him to make the visit; and why no steps were taken by the immigration authorities at Dover to obtain information from the police department in Bolton in order to satisfy themselves that a genuine visit was intended.

Mr. Ede: The answer to the first two parts of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the immigration officer was satisfied from his interrogation of Mr. Merz that his real purpose was to seek work and settle in the United Kingdom, and the Bolton police could have thrown no light on this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the British authorities in Frankfurt had granted a visa for this German youth to visit a Bolton family, and in view of the fact that he explained his position to them when he arrived at Dover, why were not proper steps taken by the immigration authorities to see whether or not the real intention was to visit this family or to seek work?

Mr. Ede: The answers that he gave when he was interrogated at Dover made it quite clear that his intention of coming here was not to pay a short visit but to seek work, and, if possible, to remain here permanently.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Home Secretary aware that the immigration authorities asked this lad if he would like to work in England if he had the opportunity? This question was asked after a lot of other questions had been put to him. That would not mean that the purpose of his visit was to stay in this country and seek work.

Mr. Ede: That is not the report of the conversation which I have had.

Mr. Sydney Stanley

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet heard from Poland about Mr. Sydney Stanley.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

Mr. Vane: Could the right hon. Gentleman ensure that while Mr. Stanley is waiting no obstacle to the sending of his fleet of motor cars to help Socialist candidates at by-elections will be put in his way?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN'S OFFICERS (WOMEN)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 22 Children's Officers already appointed are women.

Mr. Ede: Of the 113 persons appointed as Children's Officers by 122 local authorities, 79 are women.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Medicines and Drugs (Private Patients)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce regulations to make eligible to receive medicines and drugs free of charge under the National Health Service those private patients who were refused admission to the panel of the doctor of their choice because he considered that they reside at an uneconomic distance from his surgery.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): No, Sir.

Mr. Skinnard: Is the Minister of Health aware that very often a doctor has a good case for refusing to put a patient on the panel, but in the patient's case there is a very serious reason why he should remain for a time at any rate with the private doctor of his original choice?

Mr. Bevan: I can see no point in that at all. If the doctor does not take the patient, the patient should seek another doctor. That is no justification for amending the whole of the Act.

Aliens (Leaflet)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health by what authority he issued N.H. 5, No. 2.

Mr. Bevan: There is no N.H. 5, No. 2.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that I have here in my pocket—it is a misprint—"National Health Service No. 2," an approved paper, which is given

to every alien who arrives in this country, offering him free health services? Is not the right hon. Gentleman breaking the law in offering free health services to aliens, and will he tell the House who pays for the services which are rendered to aliens, who can afford the fare to come here and then get health services for nothing?

Mr. Bevan: That is not the Question on the Order Paper, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to answer what he asks I will do so briefly. The leaflet is for the purpose of informing persons who take out identity cards in this country, and seamen who missed the original distribution, what they can obtain through the National Health Service.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that it does not say so on the paper?

Parkinson's Disease (Treatment)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if he will state, in some detail, what provision is made through the National Health Service for the treatment of Parkinson's disease; and what treatment centres now exist.

Mr. Bevan: Treatment is given by general practitioners and hospitals; as part of the National Health Service.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that there is no centre, and that there is an alleged cure for this disease in America? Will he get some American specialists over here to treat this problem.

Mr. Bevan: It is undesirable for hon. Members to awaken hopes among people in this country who suffer from this disease by making statements of that sort. If there is a cure for Parkinson's disease in the world, we shall get it as soon as anybody else.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man in Germany claims that he has a cure for this disease, and will he, at any rate, take such steps as are necessary so that sufferers from this disease will know that the Ministry of Health are fully aware of this, and are looking into it?

Mr. Bevan: There are claims made by people that they have cures for all kinds of diseases all over the world. We cannot give attention to every claim which is made, but if there is a prima facie case


for investigation it is always immediately undertaken. That case in Germany is being investigated.

Sir W. Smithers: Is there any cure for "Bevanitis"?

Liver Extracts

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the concern of members of the medical profession at the unsatisfactory response of patients to treatment with liver extracts, due to the extracts being prepared from animal livers unfit for human consumption; and whether he will arrange with the appropriate Minister that such liver extracts will in future be prepared only from healthy animal livers, which have been properly and individually tested clinically beforehand.

Mr. Bevan: I have had a number of complaints of this kind. It would, I fear, be impossible to adopt the suggestion of individual clinical tests, but I propose to consider with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food whether any other action should be taken. The process of extraction makes the extract quite safe.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his obvious concern in regard to this extremely serious matter will be very much welcomed by the medical profession? Would he consider with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food the setting up of a public inquiry into this extremely serious position about which the medical profession are deeply concerned?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the last part of the answer, he will see that I have said that the process of extraction makes the extract quite safe. It may be that the extract that is taken is not effective, but it is innocuous in the sense that it does not cause any harm to the patient.

Major Lloyd: It is a very serious thing. Why should it be only now, and never before the war, that livers should be taken from carcases that are entirely unfit for human consumption and used for this purpose?

Mr. Bevan: Once more a statement is being made which may have a frightening

effect on the people who are taking the extract. On the best advice that I have taken, it appears that the extract, although it might not be effective for the purpose for which it is used, is quite safe.

Major Lloyd: I am entirely unsatisfied with the reply and I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Hospitals, London (Property Leases)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, in view of the fact that the vendor paid £8,000 for the Royal Stuart Hotel, Earl's Court, and that the Moorfield's Eye Hospital purchased the lease of this property for a total of £81,000, he will investigate the manner in which the latter purchase was made;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that the vendor paid £5,000 for the Constance Hotel, Lancaster Gate, and that the Middlesex Hospital purchased this property for a total of £40,000, he will investigate the manner in which the latter purchase was made.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. The respective figures are not directly comparable. The prices paid were negotiated and agreed by the district valuer and included the purchase of the leasehold and furnishings, and in the case of the Constance Hotel, the freehold.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister give us the details of the opinion of the district valuer on the value of the furnishings, so that we may have some idea of the actual profits gained by the vendor of this property?

Mr. Bevan: It is not usual when a valuation has been made by the district valuer to give each detail of the value he has attached to every item. We usually have confidence in the district valuer. If there is any reason why we should not repose that confidence in this case I would like to have the evidence.

Hospital Beds

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health how many hospital beds were vacant on 1st January, 1949.

Mr. Bevan: On 31st December, 1948, there were:
Beds, staffed and occupied, 398,229; beds, staffed and unoccupied, 56,215; beds, unstaffed, 52,924.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Will the Minister say how it is that there are 52,000 beds unstaffed at the present time when we have 35,000 more trained nurses in the United Kingdom than we had in 1938?

Mr. Bevan: It is because we have much more hospital accommodation, many more patients in hospitals and many more people ready to take advantage of hospital facilities.

Hearing Aids

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the standard hearing aid supplied to insured persons is unsuitable to enable many deaf people to hear adequately well for their needs; and whether, when some other hearing instrument is certified as necessary, some arrangement can be made for the patient to pay the extra cost, such as is allowed in relation to dental and optical treatment.

Mr. Bevan: I do not accept the suggestion in the first part of the Question. The answer to the second part is "No, Sir." I would remind my hon. Friend that the National Health Service is free to all and does not depend upon insurance.

Sir R. Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this restriction to one kind of hearing aid is laid down in the interests of the persons concerned? Or are there other reasons?

Mr. Bevan: We are quite satisfied that the Medresco hearing aid is an effective one. We do not see why it is necessary, as we can produce this aid, to finance any other aid.

Dentures

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health (1) what is the present average delay in the supply and repair of false teeth under the National Health Service scheme; and, in view of complaints that many patients are kept waiting several months, what steps he proposes to take to accelerate the service;
(2) in view of the inability of dentists to cope with the repair of false teeth and their refusal to co-operate with independent repair firms, what action he proposes to make it possible for the skill and experience of the 1,500 technicians employed by these firms to be used for the benefit of the National Health Service.

Mr. Bevan: There is a certain delay in the provision of new dentures. No evidence of any substantial delay in obtaining repairs to dentures has come to my notice. As regards the use of independent dental technicians, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) on 27th January.

Mr. Keeling: As, according to that reply, these dental mechanics have to be supervised by dentists, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his present reply with the statement of the Teviot committee that it will take 20 years before the country has enough dentists?

Mr. Bevan: It is desirable in my view, and in the view of those who are inquiring into this matter, that dental technicians should be under the supervision of properly qualified dentists. I do not share the pessimistic outlook to which the hon. Member has referred.

Mrs. Corbet: asked the Minister of Health how many complete sets of new dentures have been supplied under the National Health Service to the latest convenient date; at what cost; and what is the average gross profit made by the dentist on each set.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that information as to the number of complete sets of dentures supplied under the National Health Service is not available. The fee prescribed for full upper and lower dentures is £10 10s. on the assumption that the average practice expenses for this item amount to just over £7, of which £4 15s. represents workshop charges.

Spectacles

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make arrangements whereby applications for spectacles under the National Health Service can be graded according to medical priority, so that the most urgent cases can be dealt with first.

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Health if he will now state what steps are being taken to reduce delays in supplying glasses for special and urgent cases.

Mr. Bevan: Production of spectacles has increased by 52 per cent. since July, 1948, and it is hoped that this can be improved by the end of 1949. Opticians have been asked to give priority to specially urgent cases.

Mrs. Castle: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that where a case is regarded as medically urgent it will no longer be necessary for it to take its place in a queue with much less urgent cases?

Mr. Bevan: I am hoping to prevail upon the opticians to give priority to cases of urgency. I do not want to work out any elaborate scheme because I believe that the opticians can be relied upon to do that for themselves voluntarily. If there is any evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear about it.

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that persons requiring alteration or readjustments of their spectacles under the National Health Scheme are being informed that only new spectacles will be provided; and if he will consider effecting a reduction in costs if this practice is dropped and existing glasses are, wherever possible, readjusted.

Mr. Bevan: I am not aware of this practice and I would be glad if my hon. Friend would supply me with particulars. The same dispensing fee is paid where an existing frame is used so that there is no financial advantage to an optician to suggest a new frame if it is not needed.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health how many old age pensioners have been granted spectacles since the inception of the National Health Scheme.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that the information is not available.

Air Beds (Purchase Tax)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that air beds carry Purchase Tax, even when bought for use by Red Cross medical units assisting in the health service; and whether he will consult with the

Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to securing a rebate of the tax in suitable cases.

Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir," and to the second part "No, Sir."

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentlement aware that the National Health Service Act invokes the aid of a number of voluntary bodies? Is it sensible that the Government should penalise with a heavy Purchase Tax the part which can be played by those voluntary bodies? Will he look into the matter further?

Mr. Bevan: It would be extremely difficult to make a distinction between the worth-whileness of one voluntary body against another by rebatement of Purchase Tax. The present system is much simpler. Any multiplication of it would require a lot of form-filling.

Nurses and Midwives (Salaries)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health if he will now make a statement on the proposed increase of salaries to trained nurses and midwives.

Mr. Bevan: This matter is now being considered by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — Hospital, Peterborough (Waiting List)

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Health how many patients are on the waiting list to enter Peterborough Memorial Hospital for necessary operations; how many of them have been waiting for more than six months; and how many beds were empty at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Bevan: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this matter is urgent and that there are a number of serious cases waiting for operation?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-SEMITISM (SPEECHES)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if be is aware of the increasing


anti-Semitism of the Mosley organisation; and whether he is taking any steps to avoid possible breaches of the peace.

Mr. Ede: While Union Movement speakers have in recent weeks more openly spoken against the Jews, they attract little public attention and there has been no increase of disorder on that account. The preservation of the peace is the responsibility of the police, who take adequate steps to that end.

Mr. Shepherd: Does the Home Secretary realise that if he allows these people to start a wave of anti-Semitism or propaganda against the Jews it will be very disturbing to the public life of this country? If he listens, as I did the other Sunday, to these men talking he cannot be proud of allowing these things to continue here?

Mr. Ede: I regret that this kind of speech should be made. Such speeches are carefully reported, and the observations made are submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I was helped on one occasion when a prosecution was undertaken, by an hon. Member who sent a report of what he had heard, and on that occasion the prosecution was brought to a successful conclusion. If any other hon. Member feels that it is consistent with his public duty to render similar assistance, I shall be greatly obliged, because it is desirable, if possible, that corroboration of police evidence should be available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON STAFF, STAFFORD (QUARTERS)

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that some 20 prison officers are still without living quarters at Stafford Prison, except for cells and other rooms normally used by prisoners; and why, although a building site was purchased by the Prison Commissioners in 1946, no steps to construct houses thereon have yet been taken.

Mr. Ede: Twenty-five officers are provided with bachelor quarters in Stafford Prison, three in a former hospital ward and 22 in the former women officers' quarters. The Prison Commissioners did not obtain possession of a site for building new quarters until July, 1948, and the

necessary steps were then taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to start the building of 10 houses, which have been approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXICABS, LONDON

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the resolution sent to him from a meeting of London taxicab drivers urging the bringing up to date of the hackney carriage laws; and whether he will amend these laws as suggested.

Mr. Ede: No such resolution has yet reached me. As regards any amendment of the law relating to London taxicabs, I would refer to the reply which I gave on 9th December last to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) and the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder) and the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Bower).

Mr. Janner: Does not my right hon. Friend think that these hackney carriage laws are very antiquated, and that they should be improved and brought up-to-date?

Mr. Ede: There is a case for examining these laws when we have time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

One-bedroom Dwellings

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that local authorities' building programmes include sufficient provision of one-bedroom dwellings for old people.

Mr. Bevan: This matter is under consideration by my Central Housing Advisory Committee.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will not overlook this matter?

Mr. Bevan: Many of the housing authorities have made provision in this respect.

Ex-Army Camp, Amersham

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the


Amersham Rural District Council have not taken up his offer of the ex-Army camp at Pipers Wood, Amersham; and as the squatters living there are not provided with the services they need, what steps he will take in consultation with the Amersham Rural District Council, or direct, to ensure that all services are laid on for these families.

Mr. Bevan: My information is that the rural district council have agreed to take over the portion of the camp which is suitable for housing and that full services will be provided as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference (Report)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Education when a full report of the recent U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference at Beirut will be available.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I hope that this report will be published by the end of March.

School Building Proposal, Wanstead Flats

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the proposal of the East Ham education authority to build two schools with playing fields on 19 acres of Wanstead Flats; and what steps he intends taking in view of the result of the public inquiry held by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning in 1947 when the West Ham authority sought powers to build houses on the same flats.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. The proposal was contained in the Development Plan for the authority's area which I approved on 17th August, 1948, subject to further consideration of the details of individual projects as and when submitted to me for approval. This particular proposal has not yet been submitted and I do not, therefore, intend to take any steps in the matter at present.

Mrs. Manning: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, if he will take the appropriate steps, he will short-circuit the expensive legal procedure of the last inquiry held on this matter which has not been paid for yet?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration.

Wales (Statistics)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education if he will state the number of children in Wales who receive free milk in schools and the number who partake of school meals; and the comparable numbers for 1939.

Mr. Tomlinson: In October, 1948, the number of pupils in grant-aided schools in Wales taking school milk, which is now free of charge, was 310,594 and the number taking dinner was 203,541. In 1939 the number getting free milk was 73,786 and the number taking dinner was 15,978.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education if he will state the number of extra places provided in schools in Wales since 1945; the number of canteens that have been provided at these schools during the same period; and the cost which has been incurred in both items.

Mr. Tomlinson: Between 1st April, 1945, and 31st December, 1948, approximately 6,200 additional places were provided in maintained and assisted primary and secondary schools in Wales at a total cost of about £357,500. These figures relate to places provided under the H.O.R.S.A. scheme and by the completion of permanent building projects costing more than £5,000. In addition, it is estimated that about 4,000 places have been provided by the completion of small building projects approved between 1st April, 1945, and 31st January, 1949. I regret that the total estimated cost of these minor projects is not available.
The number of canteens increased by 427 from 1,630 to 2,057, between October, 1945 and October, 1948. These were provided partly by local education authorities and partly by the Ministry of Works as an agency service. The expenditure of Welsh local education authorities on establishing school canteens from 1st April, 1945, to 31st March, 1948, was £217,459. I regret that comparable figures for expenditure by the Ministry of Works are not available.

Mr. Thomas: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that record of extraordinary achievement in the Principality


during the past few years, may I have his assurance that he expects to fulfil his programme for 1949?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am always expecting to fulfil my programme and, provided nothing unforeseen gets in the way, I hope to do so.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education if he will state the total amount of grant paid to local education authorities in Wales during the years 1938, 1939, 1947 and 1948, respectively; and the amount of grant estimated for 1949.

Mr. Tomlinson: The total amounts of grant paid to local education authorities in Wales for the financial years 1937–38 and 1938–39 were £3,996,167 and £3,978,217, respectively. The total estimated amounts payable for the financial years 1946–47, 1947–48 and 1948–49 are £9,024,235, £9,952,826 and £11,160,226, respectively.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from the figures speaking for themselves, the Principality much appreciates this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Why should it not? The Principality much appreciates the interest that is being taken in the development of our education service under the 1944 Act.

Religious Instruction

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Education what reply he has received from His Majesty's Inspectors on the standards of religious teaching in State-aided schools; whether generally these reports indicate that the religious instruction given is of a satisfactory standard; and what action is taken when adverse reports are presented.

Mr. Tomlinson: Religious instruction in maintained schools in accordance with the agreed syllabus is not separately inspected but is included in the normal inspection of the schools. The general indication of the reports so far received is that a satisfactory start has been made towards achieving the aims of the agreed syllabuses. Adverse reports are, as with other subjects of instruction, brought to the notice of the local education authority and the managers or governors of the school.

Mr. Evans: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the gross

attack in the "Sunday Graphic" newspaper by W. H. Elliott on 9th January, and the repudiation by the Archbishop of Canterbury of his attack on the teachers, and whether he will associate himself with the views of the Archbishop?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I most certainly would, and would desire to express publicly my thanks to the Archbishop for taking up the attitude he did.

Palestinian Arab Students

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the difficult situation of 30 Palestinian Arab students whose families are now homeless and destitute and unable to support them at the universities in this country at which they are studying; and if he will endeavour to assist them.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) on 17th February.

Mr. Driberg: As I have not that reply before me, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether he is able, in consultation with the British Council or otherwise, to solve this difficult but sad problem, which is just one small aspect of the general refugee problem in Palestine?

Mr. Tomlinson: The purport of the previous answer shows that we have done our best in this country, first, through the National Assistance Board and, secondly, by referring to the Governments of the Arab States those who came here on their own initiative.

Earl Winterton: Surely, in view of the enormous sums of money quite rightly spent by His Majesty's Government in rescuing the Jewish refugees, it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to find the small sum of money required in this instance? Is he aware that if he does not, his attitude will be much criticised by Arab friends of this country in Arab countries?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not see how my attitude can be criticised; I have not any money anyway.

Earl Winteron: That is a frivolous answer to a serious question.

Mr. Pickthorn: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider consulting his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury about the possibility of a small, possibly unofficial committee of the Treasury, his office and the Foreign Office? In view of the obviously immense strength of this case, both on humanitarian grounds and on mere grounds of political tactics, does he not think that it is really urgent now that something should be done, and done by the Government as a whole, without any riding off on this money point?

Mr. Tomlinson: Certainly, and if that had been the question put to me, I would have given a serious answer, but when it is assumed that I have no sympathy with something over which I have no control individually, I have nothing to say.

Mr. Driberg: While fully appreciating that my right hon. Friend personally is sympathetic, may I ask whether his original supplementary answer means that these students will be able to complete their university courses here?

Mr. Tomlinson: It means that we have already made it possible for some of them to complete the course. Others might be eligible for national assistance. My supplementary means that I am prepared to explore further ways in which we can meet the remainder.

School Dentist, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Mack: asked the Minister of Education if his attention has been drawn to the fact that Newcastle-under-Lyme, with a population of nearly 70,000, has been without a school dentist for several months; that, as a consequence, unnecessary pain and suffering has been caused to children; and if he will take immediate action to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that the Staffordshire Local Education Authority, who now have 18 school dentists as against 19 a year ago, have so far been unable to fill the vacancy which occurred last October at Newcastle-under-Lyme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I are giving urgent attention to the circumstances which are causing a shortage of school dentists.

Mr. Mack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the way to decrease the

number of irate mothers and nagging molars in Newcastle-under-Lyme is to give a direct instruction from his Department? Otherwise I am afraid nothing will be done.

Half-Fare Travel

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Education what has been the result of his negotiations with the British Transport Commission on the question of extending half-fare travel up to the age of 15 years, in view of the raising of the school leaving age.

Mr. Tomlinson: My concern is with travel to and from school and my information is that children of compulsory school age making such journeys are usually taken at half-fare.

Communist Teaching

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Education whether he will appoint a committee to investigate and report upon the extent to which Communism is instructed in schools by school teachers.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am aware of no occasion for such an investigation.

Colonel Hutchison: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that no Communism is taught in schools; and is he aware that a letter from the London district committee of the Communist Party to Communist teachers has been urging them to promote Communism wherever possible?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am aware of the letter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers but I am not aware of its authenticity, which I should doubt to some extent from what I have seen of it. I am satisfied that there is nothing which calls for investigation in what might be described as instruction in Communism.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that sufficient working-class education is taught in the schools and, if not, whether he would accept a few books from me.

School Meals Service

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Education how many school dinners were served in our infant,


primary, secondary, modern and secondary grammar schools during the year 1948.

Mr. Tomlinson: 521,500,000 dinners were provided in canteens in maintained schools in the financial year 1947–48. This figure includes teachers' and canteen staff meals.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Education (1) what sum of money has accrued during 1948 from the economies he has enforced on our school meals service; to what degree have the quality of the meals and standard of service suffered as a consequence; and what response he proposes to make to the protests of local education authorities against this form of economy;
(2) if he will consult medical officers of health and school medical officers with a view to ascertaining to what degree the economies he has enforced on the school meals service have affected or are likely to affect the health and general well-being of our school children.

Mr. Tomlinson: The control of expenditure on school dinners rests with local education authorities. I am called upon to fix in advance the limits of the Exchequer grant for each area by reference to the reasonable costs per meal for food and overheads after examining the estimates submitted. The limits which I fixed for 1947–48 and those so far fixed for 1948–49 have covered the costs per meal proposed in all but a few cases though I have asked a number of authorities to reconsider their costs for the future. For 1947–48 the limits fixed covered an increase in the average costs and for special reasons a further increase is likely in 1948–49, in both years partly in order to permit improvements where necessary. Certain anxieties arising from provisional criticisms of authorities' preliminary estimates for 1948–49 have been discussed with the Association of Education Committees but I have received no protest against the limits so far finally fixed. I am satisfied that school Medical Officers generally have a high opinion of the quality and value of school dinners and that no occasion arises for consultation with them regarding the effect of the grant system on this service.

Mr. Davies: How can my right hon. Friend tell the House that the question of expenditure on the school meals service is left in the hands of the local authority while in the following sentence he informs the House that he places a limit upon such expenditure? May I ask further, since the two Questions have been answered together, whether it is true that my right hon. Friend has received very strong objections from local education authorities in different parts of the country?

Mr. Tomlinson: In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, it is true that I have received representations from certain local authorities, but in the main the representations have been such that after examination and explanation agreement has been reached. I should like the House to remember that this is a 100 per cent. grant and that, therefore, the Treasury and my Department must keep a reasonably firm hand upon expenditure.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that, despite the excellence of the service, the first priority goes to reducing the size of classes in primary schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: That has nothing at all to do with the Question.

Mr. Davies: In view of the utterly unsatisfactory answer which has been given to both Questions, I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

Uncertificated Teachers

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Education if he will reduce the period required to enable an uncertificated teacher to attain the status of qualified from 20 years to 10 as at present the great majority of uncertificated teachers are unable to reach the maximum salary payable to a qualified teacher and receive a correspondingly smaller pension on retirement.

Mr. Tomlinson: The provision by which the status of qualified teacher is given to uncertificated teachers with 20 years' service is based on an agreement reached by teachers and local education authorities after careful consideration of all the issues involved. I am, therefore,


not prepared to make the change suggested by the hon. Member. Uncertificated teachers with more than five and less than 20 years' service have the opportunity of attaining the status of qualified teacher by means of special one-year courses of training.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not practicable for a great many of these teachers to start training now and, in view of the fact that a great many of them have exactly the same responsibilities in schools as certificated teachers and have proved their worth, will he not give further consideration to this matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have given a good deal of consideration to this question and I am afraid it would cause more intense trouble than it would remedy if I were to make a change. I would point out, however, that we are generous in our attitude to those who take the 12 months' course in order to qualify.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation which will enable His Majesty's Government to take action against Communist agitation on the lines of the action recently taken by the Governments of India and of France.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government do not consider that any amendment of the law for this purpose is either necessary or desirable.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean business about his anti-Communist campaign? Is he aware that I am forced to the conclusion that he is a fellow-traveller?

Mr. Attlee: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has studied the somewhat drastic measures that are being taken by Provincial Governments in India, and whether he and his party generally support the power to detain without trial on suspicion of subversive activities, and a number of other things which are generally regarded as rather dangerous here.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Coloured Workers

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, in a number of cases, his officers have had difficulty in finding work for coloured men, owing to the reluctance of some employers to engage them; and if he will instruct all his officers that no labour at all is to be supplied to employers who reject, on racial grounds, otherwise suitable applicants for work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir. In my view the good will already existing in many quarters towards coloured workers would be dissipated by an attempt to impose sanctions such as my hon. Friend suggests, even if these were practicable.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is, in effect, condoning and conniving at discrimination when he gives that answer? Can he not—

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Driberg: If hon. Members would not make so much noise with their Order Papers, they would be able to hear me. I was asking whether my right hon. Friend could not assimilate his practice with that of the Ministry of Food, which does, after all, refuse a licence to catering establishments if they pursue a policy of discrimination?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that such a course would penalise British workers. I do not think I could agree to a course which would penalise our own workers.

Earl Winterton: In view of the serious allegations made in the Question and the effect that they will have upon Colonial relationships, may I ask whether it is not true that, so far as there is any resentment about the employment of these men, it is due as much to the employees as to the employers, and to certain trade unions?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I must say that the blame can be equally divided. A great deal of good will is being shown in this matter and a very large measure of employment has been found for these men.

Mr. Driberg: While I appreciate that, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear in mind, when he uses the term "British workers," that it includes a number of coloured people?

Mr. Ness Edwards: indicated assent.

Aviation Industries (Poles)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Labour whether, under the recently-announced arrangements with the Amalgamated Engineering Union, Poles are to be given employment in the aeronautical construction and aviation industries in preference to British nationals who are not members of that union.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir.

Mr. Macpherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that if customs are in any way to be relaxed, they will at any rate be relaxed in favour of British employees as soon as they are relaxed in favour of foreign employees?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The position is quite clear. No foreign worker is entitled to take a job for which a British worker is available.

Cost-of-living Index

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Labour what are the principal commodities, the increase in the price of which is responsible for the rise in the cost-of-living index between 6th October, 1946, and 31st January, 1949; and what is the extent of this price increase for the individual commodities concerned.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Particulars of the increases since June, 1947, in the price of items which enter into the calculation of the interim index of retail prices are given in the "Ministry of Labour Gazettes" for January, 1948, and January, 1949. This index replaced the cost-of-living index, which showed no change between October, 1946, and June, 1947.

Mr. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the figures to which he has referred reflect the true conditions of the increase in the cost of living in this country?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the very long, detailed explanation in this month's "Ministry of Labour Gazette."

Territorial Army (Volunteers)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Labour if he will clarify the position of men who volunteer for the Territorial Army and who work in industries which are still affected by the Control of Engagement Order and, in particular, men engaged in agriculture.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. There is no restriction on men in any occupation joining the Territorial Army. It is intended however to identify those of them whose civilian employment is such that, in the event of war, they would not be mobilised for full-time service. A list of the employments concerned will shortly be published. Employment in agriculture on food production is among them.

Mr. Renton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that before 1949, many agricultural workers joined the Territorial Army, were called up and served magnificently during the war, and that there will not be very much inducement for them to do the same in future if they are merely to be called up for part-time home service? Will he bear in mind that what the men want to do when they join the Territorials is to make themselves ready for an emergency if it should arise, and to serve fully in that emergency?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that the content of my answer has not been properly understood. We are talking about men who will not be compulsorily transferred to full-time Service in the Forces. We are dealing with the right of men now to join the Territorials. We shall publish a list indicating which men will be compulsorily taken on for full-time service in the event of an emergency.

Commander Maitland: Whatever regulations the right hon. Gentleman eventually makes, will he see that men who join the Territorial Army know exactly where they will be should war break out?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The announcement will make that perfectly clear.

Miners, Lancashire (Coal Allowance)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that 50,000 Lancashire miners threaten to strike unless their claim for a coal allowance is granted


by 5th March; and, in view of the urgent need to prevent such a stoppage, what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am aware of the negotiations between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers in regard to this claim. There is, however, ample machinery for dealing with it and I do not propose to intervene.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leader of the Miners' Union has said that he will not be able to hold his men in hand unless this concession is granted? Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to take action now rather than wait until trouble breaks out?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is very unwise for hon. Gentlemen in any part of the House to do anything which will weaken the machinery which exists for the settlement of this problem, and I should deplore any attempt to intervene at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Imported Furniture (Taxation)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority Purchase Tax, in addition to Customs Duty, has to be paid on furniture entering this country which was purchased before 1939; and whether Customs officials have experts who can decide whether the furniture is British made or not.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Furniture is liable to Purchase Tax on importation by reason of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1944, though if it had been in the importer's private possession and use for some years free admission would normally be allowed. Liability to tax is not affected by the country in which the goods were made and experts are not required in that connection.

Mr. Teeling: If the father of the person in question were to give his son this piece of furniture, would that meet the situation?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would depend on how long it had been in use. If the hon. Gentleman has a case in mind and would care to talk to me about it, I should be very pleased to help him.

B.B.C. Broadcasts (Argentina)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, due to newspaper strikes in Buenos Aires, the British Broadcasting Corporation's news commentary to that country is now obtaining an increasing audience; and what recent information on the present trade negotiations he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation to enable it to plan this programme.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Economic Information Unit of the Treasury is responsible for providing information to the Press and to the B.B.C. on questions of economic policy, including overseas negotiations. The hon. Member will, however, recognise that the prospects of reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties may be prejudiced by premature publicity before the opening of the negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Equal Pay

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his decision to make a start in implementing the Chorley Report by granting some increases in salary for the higher grades of the Civil Service before the end of the year, he will also now make a start in implementing the principle of equal pay in the Civil Service, to which he is also committed.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. The current economic situation does not admit even the start of the gradual implementation of equal pay in the Civil Service.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not equally important to make a gesture to the long-frustrated women of the Civil Service? In view of the fact that a start is being made in other directions despite the inflationary risk, will not my right hon. Friend make a start here, too, by at least equalising the incremental scales for men and women in the Civil Service?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The two are hardly on all fours. The cost of implementing the Report of the Chorley Commission will not be more than £400,000 spread over a number of years, but to start


implementing equal pay in the Civil Service would cost at least £10 million in the first year—

Mrs. Castle: Oh, no.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: —and that would rise pretty considerably and would have repercussions outside.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Does not my right hon. Friend remember that in a reply which he gave me about a week ago he said that the cost would be £1,750,000 in the first year, rising to £10 million eventually? In view of the very bad answer he has given, does he not think that he ought to be on all fours?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain), as often happens with him, has misunderstood the previous reply. The £1,750,000 referred to giving the same increments as to men. That would be the figure.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is exactly what I asked him for in my supplementary question? Would he mind answering the point I raised and not one which is a figment of his own imagination?

Mr. Chamberlain: My right hon. Friend has also misunderstood my supplementary question.

Ex-Indian Army Officers

Mr. Hollis: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for what reason officers and non-commissioned officers of the late Indian Army are being asked to return their gratuities if they accept positions in the Civil Service.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Members of the Indian Army displaced by the transfer of power in India were awarded proportionate pension in respect of past service, and compensation for loss of career. If they obtain permanent and pensionable employment under His Majesty's Government within a relatively short period, an alternative career has been provided, and compensation for loss of career becomes inappropriate. It was, therefore, laid down in the White Paper Cmd. 7116 (1947) that, where a person obtained permanent and pensionable employment under His Majesty's Government within two years of leaving India, he should not receive compensation, but only a resettlement grant of £500.

Mr. Hollis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great distinction between a person who is offered alternative employment immediately and a person who himself, with great difficulty, finds alternative employment, very likely at considerably lower remuneration?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The point only arises where the individual concerned is offered an established and permanent appointment. Then compensation is limited to £500.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Are the relative rates of salary taken into account? If the new job is considerably less well paid than the job the man had in India, does not that constitute at any rate a partial loss of career?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: These facts are taken into account. If the hon. Gentleman has any case in his mind and would like to bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Treasury will most certainly look at it.

Mr. Nicholson: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a definite answer? Cannot he say that these gratuities will be returnable only if the job is perfectly comparable both in pay and prospects? Cannot he give an answer?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give an assurance in the matter of compensation for loss of employment and career, will he assure the House in so far as pension, which is also mentioned, is concerned, that there will be no loss whatsoever for any of these officers or other ranks?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Certainly not. The proportionate pension goes on.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (EIRE NATIONALITY)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel SIR THOMAS MOORE:

80. To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is aware of the plight of ex-Service men of Eire nationality and residence, who volunteered and fought for Britain in the late war and who are now in great distress; and what plans His Majesty's Government have to ease their position.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I am in a quandary about this Question and should like your guidance. As Eire has declared herself a foreign country by statute I, naturally, addressed this Question to the Foreign Secretary but, without any explanation, it was passed on or transferred to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. What has the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to do with a foreign country?

Mr. Speaker: I am not concerned with that. I am only concerned with trying to get an answer for the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Sir T. Moore: I understood it was my right to address Ministers in regard to their own particular responsibilities. I asked a Question of the Foreign Secretary in regard to his responsibility. It was transferred to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who has no responsibility for a foreign country such as Eire is. How, therefore, can I accept his answer?

Mr. Speaker: Well, then, we will go on to the next Question. Mr. Dodds-Parker.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order. Do I not get any answer either from the Foreign Secretary or from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman chooses to refuse to have an answer, I can do nothing else but go on to the next Question. I cannot indicate who will answer questions. That is not my business.

Mr. Stanley: With all respect, I did not hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman refuse to have the answer. He did put to you, Mr. Speaker, a case which I have heard put before: under what authority are Questions transferred from one Minister to another?

Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, we are informed who is the Minister responsible for answering the Question. I think the right hon. Gentleman is in error, because I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say he could not accept an answer from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. That

is why I passed over the Question. Sir Thomas Moore.

Sir T. Moore: I want to make clear my position. What I said was, "How can I accept an answer from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations?" If, however, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is answering on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, then I will accept his answer.

Mr. Speaker: Might I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, as a supplementary, he might ask the right hon. Gentleman who replies how it is that he is answering this Question?

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): If the hon. and gallant Member, or indeed any other hon. Member, will let me have particulars about any Eire ex-Service man who is in distress, I will always be glad to look into it, and to see if there is anything which we can do to help him to work in the United Kingdom, if he so desires.

Sir T. Moore: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the answer he has given on behalf either of himself or the Foreign Secretary, but would he bear in mind that a great number of these ex-Service men, for whom I speak, left valuable jobs in Eire, got over the frontier or even deserted from the Eire Army, to join up and fight for us and now feel themselves completely ignored and forgotten? I will gladly give the right hon. Gentleman details of the cases for which he asks.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. The Ministry of Labour have a liaison officer in Dublin, who will always be very glad to give help to any man in that position.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is answering the Question, mean that, in the view of the Government, Eire is still in the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. It will be recalled that when the Prime Minister made a statement on this matter he said that in agreement with the other Governments of the Commonwealth it was recognised that Eire had left the Commonwealth, but we were not to regard it as


being foreign—[Laughter]—Hon. Members who laugh can look up the statement—and, in consequence of that decision, I should continue to answer questions about Eire.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 28th February.—Second Reading of the Lands Tribunal Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution;
Committee and remaining stages of the Social Services (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill; Public Works (Festival of Britain) Bill, and Colonial Naval Defence Bill [Lords];
Consideration of Motions to approve the Representation of the People Regulations and Representation of the People Regulations (Scotland).
Tuesday, 1st March.—Supply (3rd allotted Day); Committee stage of the Civil Vote on Account 1949–50; Debate on Civil Aviation.
Wednesday, 2nd March.—Second Reading of the British North America Bill;
Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill.
Thursday, 3rd March.—A Debate will take place on Defence which will arise on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister inviting the House to approve the White Paper.
Friday, 4th March.—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Osborne: Does this mean that we shall have no opportunity next week of discussing the Supplementary Estimate of the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member ought to know that it is entirely a matter for the leaders of the Opposition as to what is done with Supply Days.

Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman exactly correct in what he is saying? Surely the Tuesday is not a day on which it would be appropriate to discuss Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Morrison: That is quite right. It is not an ordinary Supply Day it is the Civil Vote on Account, but the Opposition can put down a Debate on the Supplementary Estimates at any time. I am sorry that I was a little in error.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Osborne: With great diffidence and respect to you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if you can state as a matter of general guidance to the House, the reason why I was not permitted to raise the question of the financial aspects of the potato situation on the Adjournment last night?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for asking the question. I think I can make things perfectly plain. The House will remember that recently we had a Debate on the Adjournment with no Minister present and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) took part. At the end of it, I said that I protested and that this was against the tradition of the House, as there was no Minister present to answer the Debate. We are not merely a talking shop; we are here to make charges and to answer them. I was sorry, because the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) did get second place for the Adjournment last night and it so happened, I understand, that urgent inquiries were made and a Minister could not be present. Therefore, I indicated to the hon. Member that I thought it would be wrong—and I think he agreed with me—to raise the matter when there could be no answer given by the Government and therefore, quite willingly I think, he withdrew his Adjournment.
It is perfectly clear that when a Member wins a place in the Ballot and has the Adjournment, when due notice is given, the Minister is bound to be present; but if by chance the House looks like rising early on one afternoon, Ministers have their responsibilities as well as other hon.


Members. They may have engagements outside, and it really must be taken into consideration that all Ministers cannot wait here on the chance that the Adjournment might come. That must be taken into consideration also. I think second and third Adjournment Debates ought to be dependent on the availability of the Minister, and I have no doubt that on the whole, Ministers would be willing to come and answer if they could. That seems to place the position clearly.

Mr. Osborne: May I put it this way? There were two Ministers concerned, and in this case I was fortunate enough to find that one was in the House. Is not the rule that the Minister's first responsibility is to this House, to be in the House, and are we not entitled to expect Ministers to put off outside engagements?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that ever came into the original arrangement when the Lord President of the Council, the Leader of the House, gave this extra half-hour.

Captain Crookshank: With the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a very novel Ruling you are giving. It has been a prerogative of hon. Members, should time be available on any night, to raise on the Adjournment any subject. The fact that the Debate may be rather less useful in the absence of a Minister is quite another matter. The right of Private Members and of all Members is surely quite distinct, that they can raise a matter. As far as that goes, even if the responsible Minister is not present, there is the doctrine of collective responsibility and in the past, Whips have taken notes and have even taken part in Adjournment Debates. In my own recollection there have been occasions on which at the beginning of even a main Debate there has been a considerable time when the responsible Minister was not present. I put it to you Sir, with all due respect that, unless the House gives a decision that this should be practised in future, perhaps you are going a little far in giving this Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I did not give a very definite Ruling. I said I thought it was a mistake. I think the hon. Member for Louth will say that I advised him that I thought it was wrong to initiate a Debate to which the Minister concerned

could not answer. I hold the view quite strongly that if there is to be a Debate it is much better to have the Minister present to answer. It is perfectly true that I have no right to stop it, but, of course, I have the right to choose who will catch my eye and I might not choose the hon. Member wishing to raise an Adjournment Debate when I knew the Minister would not be here.

Captain Crookshank: With all due respect, how was it that another Debate took place? Was that because it was found the Minister could be present? It was not as though the House rose after the first discussion. The hon. Member for Louth was to have spoken on the second Adjournment Debate and there was a second Adjournment Debate on another subject, in spite of the fact that he was not able to take part.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, there was another Adjournment Debate and the Minister concerned was present to take part in it.

Mr. H. Morrison: I should like to assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food would be the last person to be discourteous to the House. In fact, in answering Adjournment Debates, Prayers and so on she has been a most hardworking Minister. On this new practice of the Ballot where a matter is fixed in advance, it is the practice for Ministers to be prepared, but I think there has been a slight tendency lately for some hon. Members to get these Adjournments rather quickly, without notice. There are two points to consider in respect of Ministers, of whom, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman is not complaining. First, their convenience has to be taken into account although, of course, their first duty is to the House. Secondly, they have to be prepared for these things and they have to be contacted. We say that, without notice, it is not good business. I may say finally, with respect, that although it is competent for the House to talk in the absence of a Minister, it is not altogther right or dignified, and I do not think it is fair in those circumstances that one side of the case should be heard and not the other. There is a tendency now and again for these Adjournments to come on the spur of the moment, which does not seem to me to be good Parliamentary business.

Mr. Clement Davies: While one appreciates that it is right that the convenience of Ministers should be consulted at all times, and that it is desirable that an answer should be forthcoming to any Question raised by an hon. Member of this House, surely, Mr. Speaker, you are not ruling that, this being a deliberative assembly, an hon. Member who should happen to catch your eye is not entitled then to call the attention of the House to what is uppermost in his mind and what he desires to bring before the House? If I may explain it a little further, surely if there is no Minister present, there is a collective responsibility upon Ministers that somebody should be here to draw the attention of the Government to matters that have been raised? One final thing: while Ministers are sitting on that Front Bench they are not here as mere Ministers, but as Members of this House taking part in the deliberations of this House, and surely there should be no Ruling—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misconceiving the situation a little. I think that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will confirm what was a private conversation between myself and him. I did not say, "You shall not have it." I suggested to him that I thought it would be a bad thing. I think he agreed with my view. It is right, if hon. Members so wish, that they shall raise matters, but I repeated that I thought it was a mistake, because the Minister could not be here, and that is the view which I hold quite distinctly and determinedly. I think that there ought to be a reply if there is a question. I do not think it was in the form of an order by me that he might not raise the matter; it was a recommendation by me. I thought it would be a mistake, and I stick to that opinion.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: While, of course, the practice of the House has changed a little in this Parliament—when so many people have wanted to have an Adjournment, so many more than used to be the case—I take it, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling does make it clear now that, ultimately, the question of whether an hon. Member, who is discontented and desires to speak on the Adjournment, should do so without the Minister, or should wait until the Minister is available, must in the last resort be

for the discretion of that hon. Member and not for the House.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of who will catch my eye, and that is a consideration for myself.

Mr. Stanley: If, as is now the practice, notice is given to you of a Member who wishes to speak on the Adjournment, and if that Member rises and there is any competitor, he will not necessarily catch your eye, even though he may have been the first to give notice that he wished to raise the matter on the second Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we are mixing up the extraordinary Adjournment and the ordinary Adjournment. The ordinary Adjournment is a regulated matter and the person who has it, catches my eye automatically.

Mr. Stanley: I was referring to the second Adjournment. In a case such as this where an hon. Member did communicate to you that he intended to raise a matter on the second Adjournment—I understand my hon. Friend was the first hon. Member to communicate to you with regard to the second Adjournment—do we understand now, in view of the fact that no Minister was going to be present, that if he had risen at the end of the first Adjournment and another hon. Member had risen to raise another subject where a Minister could be present, it would have been the other hon. Member and not my hon. Friend who would have been fortunate enough to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is anything definite on the second Adjournment. It has not been balloted for. It is a matter between my office and the hon. Member. That is a matter within my discretion and not entirely a matter of those who catch my eye. There are many people who get up, and surely it is a matter for my discretion in the interests of the debating position.

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry to press this matter but it is one of great importance. I understood, Sir, that the practice has grown up, with your consent, of communicating to your office the intention to raise a matter on this second Adjournment. We had assumed the practice was that anybody who first communicated his intention would be the hon. Member who would be likely to be called for the second


Adjournment. Are we to understand now that that practice of communicating with your office has no validity, and that after the first formal Adjournment is over, anybody can get up on any subject, provided a Minister is there, and you will then choose between them, even if they have given no previous indication?

Mr. Speaker: On any Adjournment anybody can get up. It depends whether they catch my eye, but I like to know and I do endeavour to arrange matters, if notified. If anybody wants the second Adjournment they should notify my office. It is unofficial, and I will not regard it as being the same as the official Adjournment which has been balloted for. I feel that I must regard the debating position of the House as a whole. Those who want the second Adjournment will practically always get it, but I feel I have some duty to the House and I do not think it is a right, just because anybody puts down his name for the second Adjournment. If nobody can be there to answer, I may feel that another subject might more usefully be discussed. I feel that the second Adjournment Debate is a matter which lies within my discretion. After all, anybody can get up and catch my eye. I can see anybody. I can lay down no Rule that merely because somebody puts his name down for the second or third Adjournment, he must automatically be called.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Some months ago, Mr. Speaker, you rebuked me on an Adjournment for speaking somewhat away from the main point that was being debated. I said that I was under the impression that any subject could be talked about on the Adjournment. You said that you thought that subjects might only be talked about on the Adjournment if there was a Minister directly responsible. In fact, you doubted whether the affairs of the Kitchen Committee could be talked about on an Adjournment. I rise therefore to ask whether, according to the traditions and rules of this House, it is open for an hon. Member to speak on any subject in the world, or out of it if he so desires, whether a Minister is responsible or not?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising the matter. I should like him to look up the reference in HANSARD. The Speaker is not allowed

to make a wager, but I am perfectly certain that I have never given a Ruling of that kind.

Mr. Nicholson: I did not mean that you gave a Ruling. You rebuked me for speaking away from the point. This was in a private conversation afterwards. I hope I am not doing wrong in raising it, but may we have a Ruling on that point?

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree that I may have said on an Adjournment that we were discussing a certain subject and that I thought it would be a great pity to go away from that subject. Officially anybody can talk about anything they like, provided it does not involve legislation.

Mr. Mikardo: Is it not a commonsense interpretation of the opinion given today, with which I am sure most hon. Members would agree, that there is a distinction to be drawn between those hon. Members who seek to use the Adjournment to represent their views to Ministers, and those hon. Members who seek to use the Adjournment to represent their views to their local newspapers?

Mr. Speaker: No. This was an Adjournment of some considerable importance and I should have been very glad if a Minister could have been present. Potatoes are an important subject not merely to the constituents of the hon. Member for Louth but to everyone concerned. I did not mean that.

Earl Winterton: In view of what has just been said by the hon. Member, although I am sure it is not necessary to ask you to make it clear, is it not a fact that the Chair never takes notice of the motives of hon. Members but assumes that the motives of any hon. Member are honourable?

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree with the noble Lord. I never think of motives.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not the case that the basis of all the rules about the Adournment Debate is this: that when the Government business for the day is over, then the time left is at the disposal of any Member of the House to raise any subject which he likes, provided that legislation is not involved, and that this business of signing the book and giving notice to your office and having a ballot for the order of precedence in Adjournments has only arisen in this Parliament


and is only a matter of convenience between the various claimants for Adjournment Debates, but that this is quite without prejudice to the rights of the House and the Private Member to use any time available after Government business is concluded to raise any matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: I wish to put it on record that I think it would be grossly unfair if the Adjournment were regarded absolutely in the way in which my hon. Friend has put it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Government are entitled to put their point of view and to claim justice for themselves. I only say that if, on the Adjournment, the House is permitted to discuss in an abstract way what the exact shape of the moon is, I am not greatly worried, if that is in Order. But if the Government are to be attacked, or if a Minister or a Department is to be attacked, surely it is reasonable equity and fairness that private notice should be given and that the Minister concerned should be given an opportunity to reply. Otherwise we might have in the House on the Adjournment, the most wild and irresponsible charges against a Minister without the Minister having a reasonable opportunity to reply.

Mr. Osborne: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the reply you have given? I should like to point out to the House that I rang up the office of the Minister responsible. I gave the secretary the details I wished to raise and I gave the number of the House of Commons official paper with which I intended to deal. Afterwards, I saw the right hon. Lady herself in the House. I do not blame the right hon. Lady. I blame her superior who is never in the House. I think that adequate notice was given. Since we are all expected to be here as back benchers, I think that the Ministers should be in the House as well.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would it not be more helpful if the Leader of the House could find more Government business to keep us occupied until ten o'clock? If he does not know what to bring along, would he consult some of his hon. Friends who would advise him?

Mr. Clement Davies: Is there any distinction between a matter of convenience which I think you, Sir, have been referring to, and what the Leader of the House was referring to? As a matter of convenience

notice is given when a question is to be raised, and the Minister endeavours to be here. I do not suppose that you intended to rule that if there was no Minister present, then the proceedings of the House should come to a stop because nobody could raise any question. That is the point we want to be absolutely clear upon.

Mr. Speaker: I hoped that I had made that perfectly plain. It is true that I had a conversation with the hon. Member. I pointed out that I had been notified that the Minister could not be present and, therefore, I thought that his Adjournment would be rather beating the air. I thought that it was better to have an Adjournment Debate when the Minister was present to answer and, quite willingly, the hon. Member gave up his Adjournment. I gave him no order. Possibly on another occasion, if an hon. Member were obstinate, he might not catch my eye; but in this case there was no order, no compulsion. This was a friendly arrangement. It is advisable if possible to have an answer, but if no Minister is present and hon. Members get up, I cannot refuse to call them. It is a right of Members, until the time is up, to get up and talk on what subject they like as long as it does not involve legislation.

Mr. Driberg: While the Leader of the House has expressed the common sense and the political equity of the matter, is it not the case that the theory and practice of the House are exactly as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and that we simply wish to guard all the time against any diminution of the rights of hon. Members through, perhaps, overhasty or too rigid Rulings arising out of purely experimental matters of convenience like the ballot? Can we take it, therefore, Sir, that, while we would obviously listen to your advice with respect, you would not, for instance, refuse to see an hon. Member, such as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), if he were the only Member to rise to seek to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that explains more or less what I said.

Captain Crookshank: May I, Sir, make a final submission to you? It seems that


a really important matter has been raised by these questions and answers. The present system of the ballot for the Adjournment is still in an experimental stage. It has been used in this Parliament, but it has not been accepted as the permanent practice of Parliament, whereas there are plenty of precedents the other way, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Would it not be a happy way out of our difficulties if you could take into consideration all that has been said and reconsider the previous practice of the House with a view, possibly, to giving your further guidance on another occasion?

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I think that is governed by Standing Orders. The half-hour Adjournment is part of our Standing Orders. It can be reconsidered by the appropriate authority of the House, but I do not think that it can be reconsidered by me.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Is it not convenient, as occurred last night, if you, Sir, choose for a second Adjournment a subject such as that about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) had given notice earlier in the day at Question Time? He said then that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible, that being a matter which was then uppermost in the minds of hon. Members, and upon which many wished to speak. In reconsidering this matter, would you bear in mind the question of whether you will necessarily always give preference on a second Adjournment to a Member who comes to see you first, or whether you should also take into account matters of which notice has been given at Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must remember that in the Parliament before the war, the Adjournment was generally taken by somebody who had been dissatisfied with the answer to a Question put on the same day. That used to be the usual practice then, if there was time.

Mrs. Middleton: Will you help the House, Sir, by telling us what are the considerations which obtain in deciding to call a second Adjournment? On a not far distant occasion I was fortunate

enough to win the ballot for the Adjournment Motion. There were a number of hon. Members in the House who wished to support what I said both before the Minister had spoken and after he had finished. But automatically when the Minister had concluded, another Adjournment was called without consideration of whether hon. Members wanted to discuss the first matter further. I should be most grateful if you would let us know what are the considerations which determine whether a second or third Adjournment will be called.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think the Leader of the House complained that it would be unfair to Ministers if Members raised questions, without those responsible being present. Would I not be correct in saying that, supposing the matter cannot be dealt with by private correspondence to the Member concerned afterwards, it is always within the power of the Minister to make a statement at the end of Questions, with the permission of the House. Would not that cover the objection expressed by the Lord President?

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. and gallant Member that at one time in this Parliament we used to have a great number of statements and they used to absorb a great deal of time. On the whole, the House thought that the statements should be few and far between. Actually, now, I think the Prime Minister's permission, as well as mine, has to be obtained before they are made.

COTTON INDUSTRY

Mr. Fairhurst: In reference to the Business for next week, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the increasing uncertainty in the Lancashire cotton industry about foreign competition, especially from one country in the East, he will give the House a chance to discuss the matter more fully than has been possible in the past.

Mr. Morrison: That might come up in the course of the year on some item or other, or it may possibly be a subject for a Supply Day. I do not see that I could give a special day for it.

Mr. Fairhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that in Lancashire we are gravely disturbed about what is


happening now—not what may happen in the course of the year?

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the Leader of the House remember that, when an attempt was made to raise the serious situation arising in Malaya which would affect the cotton industry of Lancashire, he gave the same putting-off answer, and that this is a question which should have early attention from the House?

Mr. Morrison: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make representations in the right quarter with a view to a Supply Day being devoted to it.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[SECOND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. 1948–49

CLASS II

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES

4.3 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,695,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."—[Mr. Rees-Williams.)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The first item on this Vote refers to a sum relating to North Borneo amounting to £100,000. A financial settlement between H.M. Government and the Governments of North Borneo and Sarawak was announced in the House in answer to a Question on 14th December, 1948, and it included a provision that H.M. Government should make free grants towards the cost of reconstruction in North Borneo. North Borneo suffered very heavy war devastation; in fact, something like 90 per cent. of the buildings in the towns were destroyed, and, since the transfer of administration from the Chartered Company to the Crown on 15th July, 1946, North Borneo has been in receipt of grants and allowances in aid of expenses of administration.
It is a matter for congratulation that, in the case of both territories, they have made very substantial progress towards recovery, and the grants which it is proposed to make for the financial years 1949–50 and 1950–51, or for a longer period if the pace of reconstruction is slower than anticipated, will total £1,100,000, plus the unexpended balance of £500,000 of the 1948–49 provision for grants in aid of the expenses of administration. I have alluded to the fact that these territories have rehabilitated themselves


very handsomely since the war, and I am glad to say that North Borneo can now meet its normal expenditure of administration from revenue, and only needs assistance in order to balance its reconstruction budget.
I am sure that the Committee would like it to go forth from here that we appreciate the efforts of the Governments of North Borneo and Sarawak—because Sarawak is in the same position—and also of the planters and others in industry which have enabled these countries to get back on their feet so quickly. When one realises how many countries are still suffering from the devastation of war, one feels that North Borneo, which was devastated to an extent to which no other was devastated, can be congratulated on the efforts it has made, and I am sure that any tributes paid by this Committee will be most appreciated by the people of North Borneo.
No further issues will be made of the normal grant-in-aid provision as such, and the amount outstanding on 30th September, 1948, is shown as a saving. The purpose of the present provision in fact is to revise the arrangements beyond the period in which the present financial year ends, and Parliamentary approval is necessary in view of the change of the scope of the grant.
Turning to British Somaliland, this territory has been under the British military administration since 1941, and only reverted to its natural home, the Colonial Office, on 15th November, 1948. The Protectorate was liberated in 1941, and since then His Majesty's Government have had to revert to the pre-war practice of supplementing the local revenue with funds exclusive of grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. This is one of the territories of the Colonial Empire, of which there are several, which we must bear in mind when talking about constitutional advance. Up to now, the assistance which has been given has come from the Army Votes, and now that the civil administration has been restored and has been taken over by the Colonial Office, it has become necessary to seek approval for financial provision to cover the expenses of administration from 15th November, 1948, the date on which we took over, until 31st March, 1949. The sum required for this

period is £215,000. There will, of course, be an equal saving, or an approximately equal saving, in the War Office Vote.
Before the war, the Government were limited both by policy and circumstances—the hard circumstances of a more or less desert territory—to the preservation of law and order. But the changed circumstances and the coming into power of a Labour Government have made it both desirable and possible to take more positive action, not only in the political field, but also in the economic and social fields. There is much rehabilitation work to be done in the Protectorate. Buildings and equipment are required, and a limited expansion of the social services must be provided. Provision is also to be made for a war damage compensation scheme likely to cost £150,000, but very little, if any, of this sum will be spent before 31st March, 1949.
Provision must also be made to attract the right type of European staff. It is accepted policy that the type of officer appointed to the territory should be equal to that of those appointed to other territories, and also that officers should not serve the whole of their service in the territory, but that there should be a normal interchange, as in the case of other Colonies. The language question, of course, arises here, but I personally do not see why that should be a barrier to interchange with British Somaliland any more than anywhere else. I mention this because before the war there was a certain stagnation about the interchangeability of officers between British Somaliland and other territories, and I believe that doubts have been expressed on that point by the Opposition. If they feel any doubts, I hope that what I have now said will clear them.
The next item on the Vote is that relating to British Honduras. When the 1948 Estimates for British Honduras were approved, though a deficit seemed probable, it was impossible to foresee accurately what would be the effect of certain proposed increases in revenue. It was hoped that the Colony might balance it budget, and for this reason no grant in aid was in fact provided for. As a matter of fact, I am glad to say that the revenue has increased. It has been increased by some £22,000, and also the Colony has been relieved of certain charges on loans for hurricane relief, but certain unforeseen expenditure of a miscellaneous nature has


been incurred, such as expenditure on public works, including the cost of roads and certain repairs made necessary by an exceptionally heavy storm of rain during June. In order to enable the Colony to balance its budget, therefore it is necessary to provide them with a grant in aid of £35,000.
Certain questions will undoubtedly be raised as to the policy in British Honduras with regard to the unemployed. I have certain figures; if the Committee are interested, and if the matter is raised, my right hon. Friend or I will be prepared to deal with it at a later stage. The schemes which we have in mind, and which will be affected to some extent by this sum, include steps to deal with the immediate problem of unemployment in British Honduras. They are schemes of a nature which will help to solve or relieve the immediate problem, but, of course, in the long run there must be an improvement in the basic economy of the country. These are only what might be described as patchwork schemes, and until we tackle the main problems in the country there can be no real attack upon unemployment. As the Committee know, we are getting down to that now.
The main plan is to build up the agricultural economy from scratch, and to make it a flourishing industry. There has been very little agriculture as we know it in British Honduras, because they mainly buy their food from outside. A new Governor has recently gone to British Honduras. Before he left we had a long conversation with him in the Colonial Office, and we were very pleased to note his great interest in these matters, including economic development. We know that he is studying the results of the work of the rehabilitation committee which has been operating in the West Indies, and the results of which may be applied to some extent in British Honduras.
There is an item in the Estimates dealing with Malta. The Committee will remember that during and immediately after the war His Majesty's Government made large financial contributions to assist Malta to carry the burden of subsidies on food. In July, 1946, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies announced in Parliament in the course of a general financial statement that the United Kingdom contributions towards the cost of food subsidies would be

tapered off from £900,000 in 1946–47 to £450,000 in 1947–48, and would then cease. The handsome contribution, of course, was the grant of £30 million to Malta for war damage reconstruction. The granting of self-government in Malta occurred in November, 1947, that is, shortly before the end of the last financial year in which His Majesty's Government were contributing to food subsidies.
A delegation from the Malta Government, headed by the Prime Minister, Dr. Boffa, visited London in March and April, 1948, and pressed for a continuation of United Kingdom assistance towards food subsidies at that time. After full discussion, it was agreed that His Majesty's Government would reconsider their decision to stop assistance towards food subsidies at the end of March, 1948, having regard to the brief time which the new Malta Government had had to adapt their finances to the situation since they took office. The financial and economic position of the United Kingdom was, however, brought home to the Malta delegation, and it was made clear to them that there could be no question of indefinite continuation of this form of assistance which would, indeed, seem to be incompatible with the grant of internal self-government.
The Secretary of State informed the Malta delegation that subject to Parliamentary approval, His Majesty's Government would contribute up to a maximum of £300,000 towards the expenditure of the Malta Government on food subsidies in the financial year 1948–49 on the following conditions: first, that the Malta Government would continue food subsidies in the whole of that financial year—that is to say, it would not come to an abrupt end; secondly, that should the Malta Government taper off their total expenditure on food subsidies, the Imperial contribution would be one-half the actual expenditure of the Malta Government in the full year, subject to an over-riding maximum of £300,000; and last, that His Majesty's Government would not make any further contribution towards the cost of food subsidies in the year 1948–49 or in any succeeding year. This agreement was published in the Press on 6th April, 1948, and was also announced in reply to a Parliamentary Question on 26th May, 1948.
On the latter occasion, as is so often the case, there was some slight difference of opinion which appeared in supplementary questions, both on the score that we should do more to assist Malta and, on the other hand, that we had already treated them very generously in other directions. Therefore, as there are these differences of opinion, I think it is fairly clear that this was a handsome gesture on the part of His Majesty's Goverment to this very gallant little island and to its Government who have been dealing very honestly and capably with the problems which they have met since they have had internal self-government. I am glad to say that just recently, as a result of a decision of the court of arbitration which recently considered wages in the Malta dockyard, considerable increases of wages are being granted, and this will, no doubt, be reflected in the economy of Malta. The Malta Government have estimated to spend £770,000 on food subsidies in the full year, of which £320,000 have actually been spent in the first six months. They have carried out their share of the bargain and it is, therefore, proposed to issue the grant of £300,000 in full as we have promised.
I next turn to St. Lucia. As the Committee may know, in June, 1948, a fire broke out at St. Lucia, which had the same effect in Castries, the capital town, as the fire of London had in the City of London in the reign of King Charles II. It had a very devastating effect. I believe the fire of London broke out in a baker's shop. This fire at St. Lucia broke out in a tailor's shop. The main town of Castries was destroyed almost entirely; four-fifths of the town was destroyed by that fire. It caused damage amounting to approximately £2 million and it rendered 400 families homeless. Those people have found temporary accommodation in the town and also in some old military premises just outside the town which were placed at their disposal. Some of them, of course, have joined friends in other little villages round about. As the Committee can imagine, there has been a very considerable disturbance in the family life of Castries.
Those who are now living with friends are suffering from a housing situation which is unparalleled by anything we know in this country. They

are living in highly overcrowded conditions. Relief funds have been made available by other West Indian Governments, by private individuals and also by the West India Committee. His Majesty's Government feel that it is imperative upon the Government—and I am sure the people of this country will feel the same way—to come to the assistance of this little island.
We have granted £35,000 for the purpose of erecting temporary housing. making grants to enable business premises to be restored, and to cover the cost of emergency supplies of food and clothing which were flown in immediately after the fire. That was a temporary payment to cover immediate first-aid matters which arose. The issue of that sum was made under the Civil Contingencies Fund and the sum now required is to enable that fund to be re-imbursed before 31st March. I am glad to say that discussions have almost reached completion on the financing of the cost of rehabilitation which does not, of course, affect this Vote. I hope that shortly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in a position to make a comprehensive announcement on the question of rehabilitating and rebuilding Castries. I hope it will be rebuilt on a plan which will make it a model town in that part of the world.
I turn to Hong Kong, in the Vote for which the sum of £10 will be seen. That, of course, is a token sum. On 26th April, 1948, in reply to a Question in the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) a statement was made about war damage compensation in the Malayan territories and in Hong Kong. The statement referred to a declaration made in October, 1942, that after the War His Majesty's Government would, if necessary, assist Colonial Governments in making good property and goods damaged during the War. It went on to say, regarding Hong Kong, that while accepting the Hong Kong Government's recommendation that no war damage compensation should be paid from public funds, His Majesty's Government nevertheless were anxious to give practical assistance to the Colony as evidence of our goodwill. Against this background, it has accordingly been agreed, among other things, that His Majesty's Government should give Hong Kong a


free grant of £1 million to assist in resolving problems which have arisen out of expenditure connected with the war and should make a free grant of £250,000 to the Hong Kong University.
The £1 million is in the nature of a block grant to be taken into general revenue and is not linked with specific items of war expenditure. If the Committee wish to hear them, I can give some examples of the type of thing we have in mind. First, pay and pensions for members of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps—approximately £360,000. I am sure no one here would object to that. They behaved very gallantly in very difficult circumstances and for their action at that time they deserve what little remuneration we can give them. I am glad to say, as I mentioned only two days ago, that we are restoring the Volunteer Force in Hong Kong and having the three elements represented in it. Secondly, payments to civil defence workers of approximately £355,000. I am sure that, also, will commend itself to the Committee. Thirdly, reinstatement of Currency Security Funds, liquidated by the Japanese, amounting to approximately £647,000.
The free grant to the University is to assist general rehabilitation. The fabric of the building was very badly knocked about and I also understand that the furniture, the instruments, the laboratories and so on were looted. They need a good deal of money to assist them to get going again. We have not yet had any details as to what are the particular projects for which this money is to be used, but no doubt it will be put to the best possible advantage. My right hon. Friend has taken a very considerable personal interest in this University because he believes that the University in Hong Kong could have an enormous influence not only in the Colony but also in a much wider area. It is hoped that the culture which will be apparent there, the learning which will be received in the arts and various other faculties, will be of great advantage to people in a wide area and furthermore will assist in showing to the people of the Far East something of our British way of life.
Token provision only is made for those items, in order to obtain Parliamentary authority. In 1949–50 provision will be made to enable the whole of the £1 million

for war expenditure and the £250,000 grant for the University to be paid to Hong Kong. It may be that we shall not have to pay the whole of the £250,000 next year. It may be that only part of it will be paid, and in that case only that part will appear in the Estimates.
I come to Palestine which, of course, consumes by far the greatest amount of this Vote and which will possibly raise many more questions and comments than the other items which I have mentioned. The high hopes which followed the plan for partition in Palestine, under which the United Nations would provide for the Mandatory Power to hand the administration of Palestine over to a Commission appointed by the United Nations so as to establish Arab and Jewish states and an international state in the City of Jerusalem, and so that the states should be united in an economic union of Palestine, with the establishment of a joint economic board, have, as the Committee knows, not been borne out. Although members of the United Nations Secretariat arrived in Palestine to study economic and financial problems they were compelled to withdraw, following the breakdown of the administration and the security position within the country.
On 14th May, 1948, the withdrawal of the British Administration took place without handing over to a responsible authority any of the assets, property or liabilities of the Mandatory Power. The manner in which the withdrawal took place is unprecedented in the history of our Empire but I would say this: our thanks should go to all those who were responsible for the withdrawal because they certainly acted in a most efficient and, so far as they were soldiers, soldier-like manner. In all the difficulties and confusion of that time I do not think sufficient expression of thanks has been given to our civil, military, naval and air officers who were concerned in that operation.
We were then left in the position that, until such time as the successor Government were capable of administering affairs, there were, within certain limits, obligations to meet certain liabilities there in the period immediately following the termination of the Mandate which could not be indefinitely postponed. As was said in the Debate on the Palestine Bill on 10th March, the liquid assets of the Palestine Government are now vested in the Crown


Agents, and they have to be used as far as possible to meet liabilities falling due after 14th May. They have proved insufficient for the purpose, as we expected they would, and as we intimated during the Debate.
The first of these liabilities to which special consideration must be given is in respect of the deficit as revealed by the accounts as at 14th May. It was stated in the House on 23rd March, 1948, that Palestine would be faced with this considerable deficit and that it would have to be met. The second important liability is the payment of compensation and statutory benefits and leave rates to former expatriate and non-expatriate officers. It was said in a written reply to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) on 1st March, 1948, that these officers had the assurance of His Majesty's Government that they would receive the payments due to them as set out in the annexures to the reply—that is, until such time as the successor authority could possibly take over. The matter was mentioned in the Palestine Debate. Such payments are clearly in accordance with Article 28 of the Mandate, which says:
In the event of the termination of the Mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine, during the period of the Mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.
That reads more like a pious hope that we shall get back what we paid from the successor authority, but it does at least imply that there is an obligation on the administering authority to meet certain claims, and we wish to meet them. It must be emphasised that none of these items for which provision is to be made can be postponed. In the interests of the people of Palestine—they may be living in Palestine or outside Palestine—we believe that it is necessary that these claims should be honoured, otherwise they will be put into great difficulty in many cases.
In the view of His Majesty's Government the financial commitment involved as shown by these Estimates is in the nature of an advance by the United

Kingdom Government and a liability to be assumed by the successor authority. I want to make that quite clear. No approach has yet been made to open financial negotiations with a successor Arab Government or with the Israeli Government, to whom de facto recognition has been extended by His Majesty's Government, but His Majesty's Minister to the Israeli Government has now been appointed, and it is expected that after he has taken up his office financial negotiations will begin, although a considerable amount of preliminary discussion may take place in the near future.
The accounts now available show that there was a deficit at 31st March, 1948, of £1,082,000 estimated to have increased to £3,320,000 on 14th–15th May, 1948. This deficit will be met, as has already been explained, but it is not expected that the full sum of £3,320,000 will be required until after 31st March, 1949. The sum of £2,750,000 only will be required up to 31st March, 1949, to meet those liabilities which present an urgent need for settlement.
They are made up in this way. First, there is the Benzine Fund account of £45,000. This sum represents the amount due to the oil companies from the additional levy on sales of benzine to meet compensation for loss and damage at the Haifa refinery and installations. Secondly, there is £1,656,000 due to the Custodian of Enemy Property. These deposits were included in the surplus investments of the Mandatory Government, but the investments were realised to meet the heavy expenditure during the closing stages of the Mandate. It is necessary to replace these funds and pay the sum due to the successor Government or Governments. Then there is a sum of £525,000 due for Customs, Posts and Telegraphs and Special Police Posts. Certain sums were deposited by individuals and private firms for these services, and it is necessary to make reimbursements in those cases where claims for them can be substantiated.
Then there is the Provident Fund of £489,000. The investments were realised to meet expenses immediately due for payment of abolition benefits, and replacement of these funds is required to meet the individual amounts due to contributors to the fund. Then there are withdrawal expenses and office expenses


at Cyprus and in the United Kingdom amounting to £300,000. The full cost of the withdrawal from Palestine of the British Administration could not be met before 14th–15th May, and the cost of passages and other connected expenses falls as a direct charge on the Palestine funds. The sum of £100,000 will be required for this purpose, and £200,000 is required to meet the expenses of the Clearance Office in Cyprus and the Police Depot in the United Kingdom. These were set up to deal with outstanding accounts of the former Palestine Government. They also deal with the computation of abolition benefits to former officials of the Mandatory Government.
Then we come to the outstanding commitments to the Ministry of Food at 14th May. These amounted to £2,030,000 in February and March, 1948. Arrangements were made to extend foodstuffs allocations to Palestine to secure a reserve supply of essential cereals and other things of that kind up to 30th June, 1948. This was—I hope it will be realised by the world at large—a gesture, which has not received any acknowledgment, so far as I am aware.

Mr. Gammans: Did the hon. Gentleman expect it would?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We do not expect, but hope for the best. It was hoped that the successor Government through their own organisation would arrange and assume responsibility for future supplies after that date. The Government Agents accepted, on behalf of the Palestine Government, the receipt of consignments, and arranged distribution to Arabs and Jews at various centres in Palestine. The repayment in respect of the outstanding bills amounts, as I have already mentioned, to £2,030,000 to the Ministry of Food, and £1,100,000 has already been repaid.

Mr. Gammans: Has been repaid?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, since 15th May. A further sum of £669,000 has been received by Government Agents in Palestine for the credit of the Palestine Account, but owing to restrictions imposed by the Israeli Government in September, 1948, it has not been possible to effect the remittance of this sum to the United Kingdom. Our Agents are holding the money, but we are not allowed

to transmit it here because of the order of the Israeli Government. £1,769,000 has been realised from the sale of food and the balance of £261,000 has not yet been accounted for. Owing to lack of contact with the Government Agents, we are not able to say how much of this £261,000 may become available or in fact may already have been paid into the account. The amount of £1,100,000 which has already been received will be brought to account as an Exchequer receipt, as will sums yet to be remitted from Palestine, so as to offset the payment of £2,030,000 to the Ministry of Food for which provision is now made. The Committee will see that that amount will in all probability be wiped off in due course. It is not an amount for which there is no hope of repayment.
The other items amount to £800,000, of which £500,000, covering claims outstanding at the termination of the Mandate, are still subject to investigation and inquiry. These claims have been scheduled and are awaiting payment. They also include items for the widows and dependants of the Palestine police who lost their lives through acts of terrorism. Provision has been made for the payment of indents ordered through the Crown Agents and falling due for payment after the termination of the mandate.

Mr. Skinnard: Are any of these outstanding claims, claims by citizens resident in Israel or Arab citizens resident in Palestine?

Mr. Rees-Williams: There may be some among them. This is a general item, and it is possible that some of those resident dependants may be dependants of the Palestine police. The balance of £300,000 is made up of outstanding local accounts on the termination of the Mandate. It was quite impossible to settle all accounts overnight, and therefore we had to meet these accounts as direct liabilities against any assets estimated by the former Government. There is a public debt charge of £330,000 which is required to meet the increased sinking fund charge on the Palestine three per cent. guaranteed stock 1962–1967 for the financial year ending 31st March. 1949, and secondly, certain sinking fund charges on the five per cent. Palestine bearer bonds for the financial year ending


31st March, 1949, and interest due on the various issues up to the termination of the Mandate.

Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say by that statement that if the new Israeli Government refuse to accept liability for this loan, we may have an item like this in our Estimates for the next 25 years?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is a matter which perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to develop if he catches the Chairman's eye, and I will reply to it later. I do not want to keep the Committee with too much detail now.

Mr. Gammans: Can the hon. Gentleman say "yes" or "no"? I do not want to develop the matter.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I would not like to put it as bluntly as "yes" or "no" because obviously these matters are always the subject of negotiation. Certainly the guaranteed stock is a liability which falls on successor States, and therefore in any negotiations which may take place we hope that they will take over the responsibility for the guaranteed stock.
With regard to the Palestine bearer bonds, His Majesty's Government have no responsibility whatever for those. They are purely Palestine Government bonds and have not the backing of His Majesty's Government. As to the abolition benefits, the items include disturbance grants, Service grauties, commuted pensions, provident fund compensation payments, notice leave, continuing salaries and gratuities, and the amounts due in all cases are calculated according to the formula set out in the negotiations and the annexure of 1st March to which I have referred. On the termination of the Mandate, the staff employed by the Mandatory Government and entitled to abolition benefits of one form or another was approximately 4,750 ex-patriate officers of whom some 4,000 were British other ranks, and 42,000 non-expatriate officers. I am glad to say that not more than 20 of the expatriate officers remain for whom it is hoped to secure further employment. If the House would like to know the details, I should be glad to make known at a later stage how many of these expatriate police officers have been fixed up in various employments in

this country. I think that the House would be glad to know that a very satisfactory number of them have been found posts either in this country or in the Colonies, particularly in Malaya.
All ex-patriate officers have received their abolition benefits as they became due. The non-expatriate officers are for the most part being paid through Consular Posts and it is estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 have not yet received payment. This is not our fault but due to the fact that we have not had from them their places of residence and we have not been able to pay them. In the case of non-expatriates, abolition benefits have been withheld until it can be ascertained that they have not been successful in obtaining employment with the successor Government or, on the other hand, that they have been so successful.
The amount of pensions for the expatriates is £140,000 and for the non-expatriates £520,000. There are roughly 550 expatriate pensions and 8,000 non-expatriate. As regards the non-expatriate officers, the statutory pensions for these officers who have qualified for pensions under the pensions rules have been granted, but a compensatory pension or cash payment in lieu has been withheld initially, pending clarification of the prospects of their employment by the successor authority under the same terms as the Government of Palestine. That is an important differentiation between the two classes—expatriates and non-expatriates—and also between the expatriates who have been taken on by the successor Government and those who have not been taken on.
Finally, I come to the Jewish illegal immigrant camps, and the amount there is £850,000. These camps were first created in August, 1946, and they accommodated some 35,000 Jews the last of whom left on 11th February, when the camps were finally closed, following His Majesty's Government decision to give de facto recognition to the Israeli Government. The camps were built and maintained by the War Department, who are being reimbursed by the Government of Palestine. The amount of £850,000 now required will be paid to the War Office, who met the estimated cost of these camps on behalf of the Mandatory Government up to the date of the final evacuation. There are certain savings,


but I understand that it is not in Order on these occasions to go into any particulars with reference to them, but if hon. Members are successful in some way in coming within the rules of Order and ask questions on them, I shall be pleased to inform them of what are the savings, and to satisfy their lawful curiosity.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I wish to ask one or two questions, and I will begin by referring to North Borneo. Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that this Vote is in respect not only of North Borneo but of Sarawak as well?

Mr. Rees-Williams: No, it is in respect only of North Borneo. I only instanced Sarawak by saying that they also had made excellent efforts towards restoring their finances.

Mr. Gammans: Then I understand that there is to be no Vote of this kind for Sarawak. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the speed at which North Borneo has got on to its feet, but I very much doubt whether the language which the hon. Gentleman used was strictly accurate. He described it as the most devastated country in the world. That is surely a slight exaggeration? What happened in North Borneo was that one or two towns—there are not many big ones—were bombed towards the end of the war, but no damage whatever was done to North Borneo's agriculture, fishing or villages. To suggest that it was the most devastated country in the world, while no doubt supposed to make possible a tribute to what can be done by way of rehabilitation under Socialism, is, as I think the hon. Member will agree, piling it on a bit too thick.
Does this grant in aid refer in any way to the damage suffered by individuals, because throughout the Far East there are individuals who lost everything during the Japanese occupation? Four years have gone by since the war ended, and we have raised this question in the House on many occasions. So far as I know, not a single individual in any country in the Far East has received a cent. Does this item refer to individuals, and, if not, when may we expect this matter to be cleared up?
The hon. Gentleman said that North Borneo had now balanced its Budget, and that this £100,000 was required only for

what he called its reconstruction Budget. Is there to be no other reconstruction Budget for North Borneo? I take it that this item does not represent the sum total of the Government's plans for developing that country. The potentialities of North Borneo are enormous.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. I know it is awkward to follow figures, but this is the first payment on this account. Actually the sum will be £1,100,000, plus the £500,000 which is in excess during this year on the normal budgetary grant in aid.

Mr. Gammans: I am quite satisfied, provided that the hon. Member's reply means that the Government are fully alive to the great potentialities of North Borneo in the future. The danger about the concentration which there has been upon groundnuts in East Africa is that it may blind us to the enormous possibilities of growing coconuts in places like North Borneo.
I turn to Somaliland. I am glad to hear that the sum which we are asked to vote today will be used in part towards the creation of a properly paid Civil Service in Somaliland, and that at last this somewhat neglected Colony is to have a service which is worthy of it, and which will attract and keep the very best type of man. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had to indulge in his usual quip which seems to be used in every Debate, that until he went to the Colonial Office nothing whatever had been done. If he is not careful, he will begin to believe this stuff if he says it often enough, and nothing would be more fatal than that he should be deceived by his own propaganda. I feel that the hon. Gentleman sees himself as a modern Dr. Livingstone carrying the light into darkest Africa. In due course we shall be pleased to canonise him, and if we have to put up a stained-glass window to him in Westminster Abbey, it will not be necessary to spend any money on the halo.
I have not much to say about British Honduras, except that I hope that a little more will be said by the Colonial Secretary about the question of the unemployed. It is a serious matter that so large a percentage of ex-Service men are today unemployed. On the basis of the last figures we were given it would represent, applying the same proportion to


this country, over one million ex-Service men out of work. I need not remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a very delicate political situation in British Honduras arising in regard to Guatemala. These men who came back with the hope and expectation of getting jobs are highly inflammable material which can be used by Guatemala in these times. High priority should be given to settling these people in some useful occupation. It is for another reason disappointing to hear about these unemployed. We were led to believe that British Honduras could contribute in the future towards absorbing the unemployed of Jamaica. Now we learn that they cannot even look after their own unemployed.
To turn to Malta, I do not think that anyone would object to the granting of these food subsidies, but it is only fair to warn the House that a serious financial situation is likely to arise in Malta in the near future. Not only are food subsidies coming to an end, but also Malta is to a certain extent at this moment living on the war damage contribution, amounting to about £30 million, which we gave. When that runs out and the food subsidies come to an end, a situation which may be quite serious may arise in Malta, because Government expenses in Malta are tending to rise; and whatever may be said for self-government—and there is a lot to be said for it—it is not a particularly cheap form of government. The Government of this country should do all in their power to assist the finances of Malta by schemes of emigration, and also by helping surplus labour in Malta to find jobs in Government schemes in East Africa.
With regard to Hong Kong, I am not quite sure whether I have understood this £1 million grant aright. Here, again, I wish to ask whether anything is to go to individuals? Hong Kong was looted from end to end. The Under-Secretary wags his head. Does he mean that individuals are to get nothing?

Mr. Rees-Williams: No war damage compensation such as there is for Malaya, is proposed for Hong Kong, but that does not mean that individuals will get nothing. As I have mentioned, they will get a certain amount under the general scheme affecting people who served in civilian defence, the volunteers etc. But

there is no scheme such as there is in Malaya.

Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that some private individual in Hong Kong whose house was burned down and the whole of whose property was looted, but who does not happen to be in one of the categories which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will get nothing? Do they have to whistle for it?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is what it means.

Mr. Gammans: Is nothing to be done for them? Have they been definitely told that they are to be excluded? If so, what is the justification for helping people in Malaya—

The Chairman: Surely, the scope of the Debate in relation to Hong Kong is rather more limited than that.

Mr. Gammans: This grant is said to be to
assist the Government of Hong Kong in resolving problems arising out of expenditure connected with the war.
I respectfully suggest that the grant to which I am referring arises out of the war. I hope that the Under-Secretary will make the matter quite clear. Do I understand that private individuals in Hong Kong who may have lost everything they had in the world are to get nothing, whereas similar individuals who lost everything in Malaya or elsewhere, although they have not had a cent up to date, can live in hopes?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is what I have said. I do not know how many times the hon. Member wishes me to say it. I have said, "Yes, that is what he may understand." Hong Kong did not want any scheme, such as the proposed scheme for Malaya, which has not yet come into effect.

Mr. Gammans: It is such a staggering statement that I thought I was justified in asking for a further explanation. We must certainly raise this matter on another occasion. In regard to other expenditure arising out of the war, does this include any of the costs for defence against the present emergency in Hong Kong? This does not arise directly out of the war, but it certainly arises indirectly out of the war. I need not remind the Committee that Hong Kong is in the front line


against the Communist advance in the Far East, and that a certain amount of expenditure will have to be incurred to protect the Colony against its gravest danger, the inrush of rufugees from China.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now going a little too far. I cannot possibly conceive how that possibility can be an expenditure arising out of the war.

Mr. Gammans: I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, and pass on to a matter which certainly arises out of the war, and that is whether anything has been allowed in these Estimates for rehabilitating Kai-Tak aerodrome. I need not remind the Committee that that aerodrome is easily the most dangerous aerodrome in the world; Members have only to look at tonight's papers to see that yet another aeroplane has crashed. I believe there was a scheme on foot just before the war for building an aerodrome elsewhere, but that it was held up because of the war. Has anything been done to provide Hong Kong with a suitable and safe aerodrome? I notice that the Under-Secretary wags his head, by which I take it he means the answer to be "No."
I want now to say a word on Palestine. Judging by these Estimates, the liquidation of the British Empire is not only a melancholy business but a pretty expensive one, because we are being asked here to spend £12 million on expenses incurred in that liquidation. I should have thought, considering we are giving the independence that has been asked for, we should have got out at less expense than this. I thought one did not shoot Santa Claus before Christmas, but here he is being not only shot but robbed. Have we any sterling balances of Palestine in London or any other assets which we hold that might be set off against this expenditure? The right hon. Gentleman is optimistic in the extreme if he expects that the new Israeli or Arab Governments will accept much of this liability.
In this connection, I notice that there is an item for non-expatriate staff. Do I understand that we are under an obligation to pay pensions or gratuities only to those members of the staff of the old Palestine Government who have not jobs, and that if anyone has been taken on by the new Israeli or Arab Governments we are not under any liability to continue paying pensions? Surely it would be

incongruous if we had to pay pensions to non-expatriate staff who have found work with other Governments. Surely that is not a charge we should be asked to accept. It looks as if these people will be having it both ways; otherwise I find it difficult to account for this large sum of £3½; million.
I hope the Colonial Secretary will say a little more about the chances of getting any part of this expenditure accepted by the new Government. When we gave de facto recognition, were these debts taken into consideration? Did we make it any sort of condition before we gave recognition that the Palestine Government should accept the expenses and liabilities under the public debt and some of the pension responsibilities and liabilities, or did we just give de facto recognition through pure weakness without any of these matters being discussed? We are entitled to know the answer to that question, because this is a very large sum of money. First, we have had to find £30 million for Burma for which we received neither thanks nor gratitude, and now we have to find £12 million for Palestine when again, according to the Under-Secretary, we shall receive neither thanks nor gratitude.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) in regard to the possibilities of the new countries of Borneo and Sarawak. These countries have soil and rainfall such as are not generally found except in the Belgian Congo and similar countries. Does my hon. Friend see any chance of these countries being properly opened up? The problem is, of course, the labour problem, but have the Colonial Office formed any opinion as to the advisability of importing Chinese labour? As far as I can see, the only chance to develop these districts properly is to import Chinese labour. I know that this gives rise to social and political problems, but I should like to know what progress has been made towards coming to a decision, and whether, if it has been decided to allow Chinese immigration, any settlement has been reached in regard to Chinese citizenship, because the Chinese insist on Chinese citizenship, as I understand it, even when they are in other countries.
I should also like to ask, in regard to the subsidy to Malta, what steps have been taken by the Maltese Government and other parts of the Commonwealth to absorb the surplus population. As we know, the birth-rate in Malta is exceedingly high, and the subsidy is partly due to the fact that the population is increasing so rapidly. What arrangements have been made to enable Malta to be self-supporting in future and to enable her to send some of her population to Australia and other places?
Turning to Palestine, we have here a lamentable sequel to a lamentable chapter in British history, starting in 1917 when we made the initial mistake over the Balfour Declaration. The hon. Member for Hornsey spoke about liquidating the British Empire, but Palestine was never part of the British Empire; it was mandated territory. Therefore, we did not liquidate any part of the British Empire by quitting Palestine. I presume that the money due to Britain for food is now in the Tel-Aviv bank. The Under-Secretary did not make clear what was the difficulty in getting this money which is due to us, or why the Israeli Government refuse to remit it. I hope we shall hear about that in the reply. As regards responsibility for the loan and the other things, I do not know what the future of Palestine will be, or what the successor state or states will do, but I sincerely hope that our Government will—because, goodness knows, we have spent enough there—do everything in their power to try to get this responsibility firmly placed on the successor state or states.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Under-Secretary covered a very wide field and showed the immense obligation for which this Committee is responsible. Although he said we could not discuss savings—and there are very few savings to be found—he gave what was a broad hint that some hon. Member should try to introduce the subject of savings in order that he could give some answer which would be to the Government's credit. The fact that we cannot discuss savings cannot worry this Government very much in this field—

Mr. Rees-Williams: Only last week, on the last occasion on which we discussed the Colonel Office Vote, the hon. Gentleman

was blaming us very severely for having made savings—and they were savings we could not possibly avoid.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman had not been so swift to interrupt me he would have seen that I was coming to that. In general, saving the question of Palestine, on which we have a number of detailed criticisms, expenditure in the Colonial field is not expenditure on which we are anxious for saving. The only reference I made last week when discussing the first of these Colonial Office Votes was one of regret that in that preliminary survey of the work which must be carried out before we can get on to any development, savings had in fact been achieved.
The first part of the Vote deals with Borneo and Sarawak, and I should like to associate the Opposition with the tribute paid by the Under-Secretary to the recovery of that territory, and to wish every possible success to a territory in the Empire which is full of great possibilities for the future. At the same time, we are glad of the grant that has been made to the people of St. Lucia to remedy the damage caused by the disastrous fire at Castries. We have strong reason to believe that very little, if any, progress has been made in actual rebuilding on the island, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to this Debate, he will show us how much of that money has in fact been spent, and what progress has been made towards repairing the damage caused by the fire.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) in regretting that the subject of Somaliland was introduced by the Under-Secretary with, once more, a political gibe. Events in East Africa in general I should have thought would cause all Government spokesmen to be a bit careful before making too much of the labour schemes in East Africa. The African mirage which is today disclosing itself in Tanganyika should be a salutary warning in that field. In regard to Somaliland, we welcome this increased provision, particularly for the administrative service, and we should like to send a message of good will to those of our fellow citizens who are serving in that territory in what is a very difficult task. It is a small but a highly specialised service, with very few senior posts, so that promotion is very


difficult; and if a man does make a success of his work there, the Colonial Office are naturally reluctant to move him elsewhere, because Somaliland is not a territory that attracts every potential officer. It is most important, however, to give the administrative service officers there more chance of promotion when they are transferred, and we should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give us further information on that when he winds up the Debate.
We must, I think, ask for further information about the unemployment in British Honduras. As my hon. Friend said, the unemployed form a tragically high proportion of the population of that territory. I believe that some 560 men were demobilised in the two years ending July, 1947, of whom no fewer than 120 are out of work today in Belize; and as there are 380 others also out of work there, the unemployed form a very high proportion of the manhood of that city. As for the Evans' proposals, we hope that great vigour will be put into capital construction, the development of roads and railways, and the preparatory work which is essential before any proper development can take place. It would, of course, be very foolish to regard any of these settlement schemes as more than palliatives, for it has been calculated that by the time the territory is ready to absorb the 100,000 people who should be the subject of these resettlement schemes, the population in Jamaica and Barbados alone will have increased by no fewer than 200,000. So a much more romantic approach is needed to the problems of this territory, and we should welcome further information by the Secretary of State. It has been calculated that in the period required to settle 100,000 people in British Honduras the normal birthrate increase in Jamaica and Barbados alone will be some 200,000.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I was wondering about the hon. Gentleman's use of the adjective "romantic." I should have thought there had been rather too much romance in the West Indies up to now and not enough practical planning.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has had many more recent intimate contacts with romantic figures in the West Indies than I have had, and I should not dream of challenging his right to be more accurate about romance.
We have subsidised essential foodstuffs in Malta over the last two years with very large sums of money. In 1946–47 we gave £900,000; in 1947–48 £450,000; and now we have a new provision for a further £300,000. I think we are entitled to know whether this is the last contribution of that kind. We are very glad to help Malta in every possible way, but we must not lose sight of the fact—which was stressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley)—that complete self-government for Malta is incompatible with a system whereby Malta is subsidised from this country. I am myself a little uncertain whether, or how far, the closing down, to all intents and purposes, of the Malta airport will add to the difficulties of the island, and consequently accentuate the economic situation. The spending power that will be lost to the island owing to that diversion by B.O.A.C.—some £20,000 to £30,000 a year in wages—as well as the money spent on the island by the 20,000 passengers who travelled there every year, make us all the more uncertain whether the Colonial Office were ever properly consulted before that diversion by B.O.A.C. was agreed on.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member is out of Order in discussing B.O.A.C. on this Vote which deals with food subsidies.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I recognise that, and I shall pass to the subject of Hong Kong. I hope that when the Colonial Secretary replies he will give us more information about the absence of any scheme of compensation in Hong Kong for those whose property was destroyed during the war. If this is a matter solely within the discretion of the local Government we shall no doubt be told; but it does seem a little strange that Malaya should be anxious to have a scheme—even though the benefits are, as yet, rather problematical—while no such provision has been made for Hong Kong. I do consider that we should know definitely whether or not this is a local decision; and if so, chapter and verse for that decision should be given to the Committee.
We welcome the elucidation by the Under-Secretary of the form that this expenditure is taking in Hong Kong, because


the actual wording of the Supplementary Estimate is a little difficult to follow. We are glad that the Hong Kong Defence Force and the Civil Defence Services are to receive substantial sums of money. In regard to defence, I should not be in Order in discussing preparations for any future difficulties, but let us hope that the money which is being spent on repairing the damage of the war is being used to equip the Colony against the possibility of further damage in another war.
The problems of a Colony where the docks and the aerodrome are on the mainland, separated from the Colony itself, require the highest consideration. I join with my hon. Friend in once more urging that substantial sums of money should be spent on Hong Kong aerodrome. It is an Imperial scandal; and the tragic news this evening vividly illustrates once more the dangers of aeroplanes landing there. I hope we shall have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he is going to take up actively with the Minister of Civil Aviation the provision of better facilities at Hong Kong aerodrome.
Lastly, this Vote deals with Palestine, and the Parliamentary Secretary was quite right when he said that the manner of our withdrawal from Palestine was unprecedented in the history of this Empire. We join with him in giving our grateful thanks to the officers of His Majesty's Service and the officials in Palestine who carried out that strategic task so well, but we see no reason to congratulate the Government on the indecision which so largely contributed to the unnecessary tragedy and led incidentally to this very large expense. Though the loss of life and honour is far more serious than the expenditure, the loss in expenditure is pretty considerable. I hope the Colonial Secretary will give us some information on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey as to whether Palestine has got any sterling balances in England which can be off set against this large expenditure.
We should also like further information with regard to the sale of foodstuffs under Vote 2 (b) and the sums credited to us, but withheld by the Israeli authorities. In regard to that and the loan which

was guaranteed as to principal and interest by His Majesty's Government, I hope the Government, now that they have recognised the facts and established direct contact with this new State, will lose no time in approaching it with regard to these obligations. Much of the sympathy or otherwise with which many people will view the advent of a new State in the world will depend on how far they honour their obligations, which will enable them to start off in a better economic way than would have been possible if this country had not incurred this obligation on their behalf. Apart from Palestine, we do not regret, save in detail, this expenditure, and we assure all who are working in the Colonial Empire of our continued interest and our desire to play our part honourably and actively in a mutual partnership.

5.23 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I propose to deal only with two Colonies, of one of which I happen to have a great knowledge and of one a slight knowledge. I do not propose to dilate on a world tour, such as is done by hon. Members who have never been to the places, have never seen them, and know very little about them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that to apply to me?

Dr. Morgan: I shall continue my speech. I do not know why hon. Members opposite should be so touchy and so sensitive. I say it again, and I have no intention of being rude at all.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: it is automatic.

Dr. Morgan: If the hon. Member does not think it true, I apologise to him, but I am making a statement which is commonly made in this House, and which is quite true in many cases. I propose as I say to confine myself to two colonies.
I want to say how much I look forward to the fact of even the temporary rebuilding of Castries, named after a former French Governor. Castries has had two disastrous fires in the last two years. Why? I wonder if the Colonial Office are aware of some of the private reports which reach us about the fires in Castries, where efforts were made by clergymen and others to get the local


population to come and help in putting out the fires, because the fire equipment was poor and there was not a full organisation to deal with the situation. The water supply, too, was difficult to get.
The native population simply stood there and looked on, because some of them were saying that they wished that some of the slums in which they had been forced to live for the past 50 years would have a good burning. They were quite right, too. If hon. Members had seen young boys lying along the tower steps at night because they had no place to lay their heads and had seen the slum streets in Castries, they would have wondered why we did not give some help to this British Colony.
It is now proposed only to have temporary buildings. Plans are being made for the permanent buildings. I wish that British architects who are doing this work would consult a little more with the native architects, who know something about tropical building and the laving out of a city. I congratulate the Government, not only on the temporary building, but on the steps that are being taken for the proper lay out of what will be a very nice city. Most of the land surrounding Castries is owned by public Departments in this country—the Admiralty and the War Office. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary could see some of that local land and have it made available for a good lay out for the new city that is to be built. I hope that some of the old forts on the top of the hills at Castries are not going to be devoted solely to Government officials in the local civil service. It is a very difficult problem to deal with. St. Lucia not only needs development from this point of view, but because of other considerations which cannot be discussed on this Vote.
The last problem with which I wish to deal is that of British Honduras. The Under-Secretary was good enough to admit that the present ideas which he had in mind for helping the local administration were mere patchwork.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I must correct that impression if my hon. Friend got it. I said this particular Vote was patchwork, but we have in mind and are actively pursuing a policy which we hope will get at the root of the main problem.

Dr. Morgan: I took down the words of my hon. Friend, and I am sorry if I misinterpreted what he said. It seems to me that I have to apologise to everybody for making statements which are not correct. However, I have got it down and here is what he said: "The schemes now proposed were merely patchwork schemes."
I want again to ask what about our policy in regard to employment. What about the roads and what about using many of the rivers for transport and transit? I wish either the Colony could be brought here or else that we could go out and see it; then we should have an idea of what it looks like. Many of the things we talk about are sheer nonsense. There is talk about unemployment and no work being available for the native population, but the Colony is teeming with opportunities, whereby employment could be found for most of the natives in British Honduras. The next thing that is talked about is over-population, and then a Governor brings in the old die hard question, which is always brought out, about birth control for the population in the West Indies, as if we could teach birth control to people, who have been kept deliberately ignorant and who cannot read or write. It may be that at this stage I am getting out of Order.
This Vote is a very small Vote confined to a very small part of our Colonial Empire. I want to express my regrets that we have not yet settled down to having committees to deal with all these problems, so that we could thresh them out and discuss them, and so present them in a more widespread manner.

5.30 p.m.

Colonel Ponsonby: I should like to say a word or two about Somaliland. I am glad to see this allocation of £215,000 for re-starting civil administration. It is true that this has been a neglected Colony. It has not great prospects and I only hope that it will not be prejudiced because it is not likely to balance its budget. The Under-Secretary of State talked about attracting the right type of European staff. I entirely agree, but in order to get the right type of staff it is essential in a place like this that pay, allowances and leave should be good. I would especially stress leave. I would call attention to the fact


that in the Sudan the excellence of the administration is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) knows very well, largely due to the fact that members of the administration get three months' leave right away from the place every year. With the development of flying there is no reason why that should not take place in other far-off Colonies. It would be niggardly to cut down expense by not making a special allowance for this leave right away.
What is equally important is that the administration should be more or less permanent. Lack of continuity and of permanence of administration has been one of the greatest defects of Colonial administration in the past. I am afraid that it continues now to some extent. In the past it has certainly gone from the top to the bottom. I need hardly mention that we have had five or six Colonial Secretaries since the war, great and noble men, often with great and noble ideas. I would emphasise the difficulties of a governor if he has to deal year after year with the great and noble ideas of a new Colonial Secretary.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. and gallant Member said that we have had five or six Colonial Secretaries since the war. Would he be good enough to let us have the names?

Colonel Ponsonby: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I thought I said "from the beginning of the war." The disease to which I refer has also affected the governors of the Colonies. If hon. Members would glance at what has happened in Nyasaland in 14 years I think they will find that that Colony had nine governors or acting-governors. That is quite a hopeless way of running a country. The same thing applies farther down the line. Hon. Members who have been in these outlying places—I am now talking mainly of East and Central Africa, which I know—will perhaps have discussed this problem with district commissioners and provincial commissioners. The one criticism that always is made is that it is impossible for a man to know what is happening in his district and to get the affection of its people unless he is there for a considerable time, certainly for six years.
As hon. Members will realise, these wild countries are not successful because

of the directives from Whitehall or even because of the arrangements made by local governors. The success of the administration depends on the affection and trust which the tribes have for individual men. Therefore, I hope that in arranging the new civil administration in Somaliland this point will be borne in mind and that the continuity and permanence of officials will be safeguarded. I wish these administrators the best of good fortune.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: I should be much happier if the figures of this Supplementary Estimate had been reversed as between the Colonies and Palestine. The first thing that strikes me is the inadequacy of £35,000 for British Honduras. The Under-Secretary of State rather underlined that fact himself by using the word "patchwork," not in the sense in which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) took it, but as he himself explained in his interjection. The unemployed in Belize could be immediately absorbed in beginning long-term work on the lines of the Evans Report alone. It will be work of a very useful character towards the preparation for the resettlement which is so urgent for the West Indies as a whole. If it is intended to employ them on relief work in and around Belize, this is £35,000 down the drain, as so many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been put down the drain in the last 20 years. The money will be entirely non-productive. It will not even be a palliative, because in the present state of unemployment in Belize the money will go nowhere to satisfy the requirements of temporary employment in that area alone.
Some time ago I asked whether the Government were prepared to go straight ahead with the schemes on the four main crops which have been suggested for British Honduras. Bananas, sugar, rice and citrus are what I have particularly in mind. I felt that here, at any rate, very little research had still to be done and very little surveying. There had been a considerable body of knowledge already garnered and it was already known that these crops could be grown successfully in the colonies. Surely the need for roads, harbour improvements and jetties was so obvious that these productive works should be the employment


provided to relieve the present situation in Belize. In the Star Creek district and the area south of it lies the clue to an immediate beginning of a full scheme of resettlement, as the Evans Report suggested, which will utilise the resources of the Colony. This could employ immigrant labour from sadly over-crowded districts in the islands in the Caribbean and lead gradually to the full development of that potentially rich territory of British Honduras.
It would be a sad thing indeed if we had to have a particular knowledge of each individual Colony on which we wished to speak. So many of the problems of the different territories are related. While I have not had the advantages possessed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, I have tried very hard indeed, both by personal visits, by study and by taking every opportunity of meeting leading members of communities, to understand the Colonies. After all, we are the trustees not only for the citizens of Great Britain but for all our fellow citizens throughout the Empire who are in need of effective help. It is in no hostile, critical sense that I suggest it is worth while plucking up our courage, taking a gamble and going in for big pilot projects to show that we really can help the peoples of these territories to get on their feet economically. If we do not do that and do not do it very quickly, they will inevitably get into difficulties and we shall require bigger and bigger Supplementary Estimates, which will not meet the real need.
I do not want to go through all the territories mentioned by the Under-Secretary, but I want to refer to North Borneo. I am not so sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) was wise in advocating a sort of wholesale Chinese immigration to solve the labour problems there. We have heard of overcrowding in many British territories, and I understand that a small scheme of immigration from Mauritius was tried. That may or may not have failed—I do not know—and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me. If one set of immigrants proved unsuitable, that is no excuse for not trying immigrants from other overcrowded British territories before we resort to what we know will create difficulties—wholesale Chinese immigration. I yield to none in

my admiration for the way the North Borneo Government have overcome their war-time difficulties and have begun to achieve financial stability in the post-war period, but they will not progress from there until they have an adequate labour force in order to develop the territory.
In regard to Palestine, is it possible before de facto recognition of a new Government to insist on financial settlements which can only be implemented by a Government recognised de jure? It seemed to me at the time of de facto recognition that this problem would arise. I am not sure whether in practice it is possible to make a hard and fast agreement about financial commitments with the type of recognition which we have so far afforded. In any case, surely the item about the Cypriot camps could not be accepted, nor indeed would His Majesty's Government urge the successor State to accept it as a liability. Possibly the camps can be used by the Government of Cyprus itself and part of the cost recovered in that way. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what will happen to the camps which we built, whether we shall receive any payment or rental for their use, and, if so, what effect it will have on the Supplementary Estimate.

5.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: We all appreciated the clear and interesting speech of the Under-Secretary. I see that the population of North Borneo is 270,000 and that the revenue of that country has gone up from £340,000 in 1936 to £5 million last year, according to the "Gazette." It seems to me that with an expanding revenue like that, we shall in future be called upon for many payments of this kind. I do not know the reason for that increase in revenue. Perhaps it is due to the production of oil, or it may be something else. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) did not mention oil and perhaps oil is not produced there. Oil is not mentioned in the "Gazette" but I always thought that oil was produced there. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us when he replies.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Rubber is the main product there, timber next.

Sir W. Smiles: Is oil produced there?

Mr. Rees-Williams: As far as I know, it is not. The oil comes from Brunei, which is to the south-west of North Borneo, and does not come under the territorial administration of North Borneo.

Sir W. Smiles: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The "Gazette" mentions that there are traces of oil in North Borneo but it does not say that it is commercially exploited. I see that the population of Somaliland is very much greater, being 700,000. Up to the present nothing very much has been done to make Somaliland financially stable. British Honduras has a population of only 70,000, one-tenth that of Somaliland. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), who knows the West Indies so well, spoke on this subject. I have read the various reports, and it seems extraordinary to me that there is unemployment among the 70,000 seeing that there is so much to do in the way of roads which would develop the mahogany and hard-wood industry. I hope that that will be cured before this time next year.
We are asked to vote £300,000 for Malta. We all know Malta's population problem and the serious financial straits Malta may be in now that she has achieved self-government. An injury was done to Malta when the landing of British Overseas Airways Corporation aircraft at Malta ceased.

The Deputy-Chairman: I pointed out earlier this afternoon that that subject would be out of Order on this Vote which deals with food subsidies for the people of Malta.

Sir W. Smiles: People have been discharged and now we have to pay for them. I will leave it at that. As regards Hong Kong, I thought that Hong Kong was one of the most prosperous places in the world at present, but I have learnt that the Vote is to compensate people who fought for us during the war and were imprisoned, and I certainly cordially support it. In the case of Palestine, too, it would be churlish and ungrateful if we did not give full compensation to the dependants of those people who lost their lives and also to the members of the Civil Service in Palestine and the Palestinian Police who have had to submit to so much during the past five years. The explanation

of the Under-Secretary was a very good one, and I support the Vote.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Crawley: Can my hon. Friend say whether the road which was being built in British Honduras up to the frontier with Guatemala—about which there was some dispute and about which the Guatemalans assumed a most menacing attitude—has been finished? Is any of this Vote related to that development? I have read a report that the road has been finished but I do not think any statement to that effect has been made by the Government. Capital development in British Honduras has been mentioned. As so much of that capital development will be in relation to timber, has any real approach been made to Canadian or American interests for assistance in providing either personnel or equipment to get on with some of the development which was mentioned in the Evans Report?
I have asked this question before and I am always assured that every effort is being made to interest Americans in all our Colonial development. However I am rather sceptical about how much is really being done. There is a good deal of prejudice throughout the Colonial Empire and the Colonial Service, a natural and understandable prejudice, against encouraging capital from other countries to come in if there is any chance of getting British capital. As we all know, however, the difficulty of providing all the capital for these schemes from this country is great, and in the field of lumber work it would seem, particularly after President Truman's speech the other day—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting out of Order. This Vote is solely in relation to the cost of administration.

Mr. Crawley: I was really referring to something which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech, and I thought it came within this Vote to some degree.
I turn to a matter which is common to both Honduras and St. Lucia. The complaint which was made to me when I was there not so long ago was that whenever any of these islands receives a grant from His Majesty's Government, all their


accounts have to be submitted to the Treasury. It does not matter if the turnover of the Colony is hundreds of thousands of pounds and they receive a grant of only £5,000—here, of course, they each receive a grant of £35,000—all the items have to go through the Treasury. That causes endless delay, the postponement of many decisions vital to the Colony, and creates a lot of ill-feeling as well as a feeling of unnecessary dependence upon London. I know that my right hon. Friend was taking up this matter a little while ago, and I shall be interested to know whether, because of these two grants, the complete budgets of both these Colonies will have to be "vetted" in detail by Whitehall. If so, it is a most undesirable practice which is detrimental to the development of any sense of responsibility in the Colonies and is resented there.
I had hoped that the previous Debate we had on Palestine might be the last one for some time. I do not intend to enter into the Palestine question, but in regard to the money blocked by the Israeli Government, could anything be said about the reasons they offer for blocking it? Again, have any representations been made—to the United States for example, who might be able to bring either assistance or influence to bear in this matter? I support what has been said on all sides of the Committee. Are there not sterling balances at the disposal of the Israeli Government which can be set off against it, or which we can use to get the money freed? Lastly, about the allowances to dependents of those who lost their lives in Palestine, it would be interesting to know how much they amount to within the item of £800,000, and on what basis the allowances were allocated.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I want to deal specifically with Hong Kong. I am especially glad to deal with this point after the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) because I think he will see, as I enlarge the point to which I wish to refer, that all is not well with this Estimate. You will notice, Mr. Bowles, that on page 31 there is mention of this Estimate and again on page 32. With regard to the latter, the Minister in opening this

Debate referred to a Question which he answered in this House last year, and he gave the same answer to a Question that I asked yesterday. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate exactly what we are doing under this Vote, and exactly how these monies are to be spent or not to be spent. I will quote a few words from the long answer that the Minister gave on 26th April of last year:
In October, 1942, a declaration was made on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the effect that it would be the general aim of His Majesty's Government after the war that, with a view to the well-being of the people and the resumption of productive activity, property and goods destroyed or damaged in the Colonial Empire should be replaced or repaired to such extent and over such a period of time as resources might permit. It was added that, if the resources of any part of the Colonial Empire were insufficient to enable this purpose to be achieved without aid, His Majesty's Government would be ready to give what assistance they could in conjunction with such common fund or organisation as might be established for post-war reconstruction.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1948; Vol. 450. c. 18.]
I have a constituent who actually went through this. At the time of war, His Majesty's Government here said to those in Hong Kong, "Stay there, protect our Far East possessions, it is right for you so to do." Today the Minister quite rightly made reference to the gallantry of the Defence Forces of Hong Kong. Having been told that, we must also remember they were suddenly overrun, and many were also taken prisoners by the Japanese. The man I have in mind lost one leg, lost the use of the other leg, and his body was partially paralysed so that he cannot move about other than in a chair. He lost all his possessions, his house, everything he had built up during a lifetime in Hong Kong, and his compensation is virtually nil.
My hon. Friend said how glad he was to observe that out of the money we were voting men who were damaged, men who had fought and lost in the war, would be compensated. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), the Minister said, "That is not to be." My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey was shocked at that reply. When the Minister replies, he may well try to say, "That is a matter on which the local administration, the Government of Hong Kong, came to their own conclusions and we agree with them." Is he forgetful of the fact that we, as


the Imperial Government here, advised those people to stay? I consider that His Majesty's Government and hon. Members of this House should apply their minds to this matter. I am very dissatisfied, and I sincerely trust that His Majesty's Government and hon. Members present in this Committee will reconsider the matter.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I have a question to ask on paragraphs (d) and (e) of Vote E which refer to Palestine. Here we have figures relating to leave, salaries and the abolition of office benefits to former staff of the Government of Palestine divided into expatriate and non-expatriate staff. May we be told whether this is a recurring charge, and what has been done to re-employ the expatriate staff in other parts of the world? All of us who follow Colonial affairs know that there is a shortage of technical and administrative people in places like West Africa. Also, may we have some more information as to what is being done to find new jobs for these people and whether, in the event of the non-expatriate staff obtaining employment subsequently, our obligations are reduced? What are the terms of the contract?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Awbery: I was under the impression, when this Debate on the Supplementary Estimates began, that there was to be a smashing attack upon the Government because of its squandermania on the Colonies and on our social services. We saw the pious preservers of the people's purse and privileges upon the benches opposite looking across at the sordid sinners sitting here in the seats of squandermania. During the Debate, howover, not one word has been said against the Supplementary Estimates for the Colonies. My impression is that the Opposition are now suffering from a creeping common sense.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express the hope for himself that it is catching.

Mr. Awbery: Hon. Members opposite are beginning to appreciate that the people of the country are not with them in their great cry to save money, especially when it is at the expense of the health and well-being of the nation at large.
I want to criticise this expenditure because I do not believe it is sufficient. We have been saving at the expense of the natives long enough, and I do not want to feel that, later on, we shall have to say that what has been spent has been too little, too slow and too late. We should, I think, have regard to the position of the people in the Colonies, but nothing has been said in the Debate about the aspirations or the desires of the Colonial people. I want to refer to past history and the present plans for development as I see them. We are beginning to realise that in the past we left undone very many of the things we should have done.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself to any one or more of the points mentioned in the Supplementary Estimate. He cannot make a general speech on the development or non-development of the Colonies.

Mr. Awbery: Page 35 refers to Development and Welfare.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not the Vote which is under discussion by the Committee.

Mr. Awbery: I did not want to confine myself to any particular Colonies. I wanted to deal with the general question of expenditure on Colonial Services.

The Deputy-Chairman: That would be out of Order.

Mr. Awbery: I shall reserve my remarks until we reach the items mentioned in page 35.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I want, first, to express to my hon. Friend my appreciation of the way in which he introduced these Estimates this afternoon. I am quite sure there will be general agreement on both sides that in these days a keener interest is being taken in Colonial matters by the general public than was once the case. This is by no means a party point and I hope that I shall not be accused of creeping commonsense if I confine myself to the issues under discussion.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has caught it already.

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps I am a little nearer, and, therefore, have caught it a little quicker.
On the Vote for North Borneo, and the grant in aid of expenditure on reconstruction and rehabilitation, I should like to know whether this includes special provision for educational facilities in that area. We are all aware that North Borneo is not wealthy and is in great need of assistance to develop its backward educational facilities.

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is being considered.

Mr. Thomas: I welcome the assurance which my hon. Friend has now given.
In the Vote for Hong Kong we are granting a quarter of a million pounds for its university which, I understand, is under the control of the British authorities.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend is, of course, much more conversant with this matter than I, for he takes a very special interest in universities. That University is under the control of the statutory authority—the University Council—and is not really under my Department.

Mr. Thomas: I welcome, of course, the fact that the freedom enjoyed by our own universities is enjoyed by the University in Hong Kong, which is placed in a difficult and unique position. It seeks to introduce the standards of culture and a way of life of our own people in an area which is surrounded by a very different standard of culture. I am glad that the Minister has interested himself so much in this matter. One comment only remains to be made by me, with my limited knowledge, which I freely confess. The fact that so much money has been granted for "Administration" should raise a question in our minds. I should like to see recorded not only "Administration" but other definite headings, so that we may know to what purposes the money was allocated. It is my earnest hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these questions in mind when he makes his reply.

6.8 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: There are only two questions which I wish to put. One is to ask for a little more

information about North Borneo. Because of international circumstances, that country has developed very quickly and its revenue has increased very substantially. I was in North Borneo for a short time before the war and can assure those hon. Members who have not been there that it was very primitive in certain respects. The Government took over the charter company immediately after the war and, as far as I know, its shareholders have not been paid out. I wonder whether that matter has yet been settled and whether the Minister can give us some further information about it? I am rather surprised that money should be required for North Borneo in excess of the original Estimates. Although that country suffered considerably during the war, its revenue has been so unexpectedly high in the last two or three years that one would think that no extra expenditure would have been necessary.
My other question concerns the territory of Somaliland about which the Parliamentary Secretary, I think, indicated that the Colonial Office was transferring officers from one place to another on a much larger scale than previously. In travelling about the Colonies I have frequently found criticism, especially when dealing with natives, that officers are moved about too frequently. When an officer is sent to a district he becomes familiar with it and gets to know the people and their ways; they, in return, obtain confidence in him. It might be a mistake, and I think it often is a mistake, to remove those officers to new districts too quickly. After all, they have long experience and education behind them. It is most important that the natives should have confidence in their officers and for that reason, although it may sometimes be to the detriment of the officer to remain long in one place and delay his promotion, it is advisable for the good of the Colony that when a man is doing a good job in a large agricultural district he should be left there as long as possible. I believe it often is to the advantage of the district that that should be the case.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am very grateful to hon. Members for their careful consideration of these Votes and the way in which they have received them. I am


sure that these Debates, which will go out to all the Colonial territories, will receive most careful scrutiny there and be hailed with much pleasure as they show the ever-increasing interest which hon. Members take in our fellow citizens in the Colonial Empire.
Dealing with the questions put to me, I come first to North Borneo. I was criticised by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) for referring in what he regarded as extravagant terms to the devastation there. These are all matters of comparison, but I would point out that 90 per cent. of the houses and buildings in the towns were destroyed and if one owned property in the towns one would no doubt regard that as equally important as destruction elsewhere. Anyone who has read the book by Mrs. Keith, the wife of our agricultural head in North Borneo, "Three Came Back," will realise what terrible conditions the people of North Borneo were under and how they lost everything and were also thrown into gaol—

Mr. Stanley: Will there be any compensation?

Mr. Rees-Williams: There is a possibility of a compensation scheme in North Borneo. The matter is now being considered. Altogether in North Borneo some £6 million will be spent. What the Committee are voting today is a small part of the total amount which from various sources—Colonial Development and Welfare and the like—will become available for rehabilitation, reconstruction and development, economic and otherwise, for that fascinating territory. One has to see this as part of the greater whole.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) asked questions on our development plans. This is not the time or place to talk of development plans and I would remind him that we had an Adjournment Debate last week in which some inkling of our development plans was given to the House. He will see there what we intend. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) some doubt as to whether the incursion of large numbers of Chinese suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon would be altogether a good thing in North Borneo.
There are quite a number of problems in Borneo now and I think it is very dangerous to bring in large numbers of people of other races either to North Borneo or Sarawak without very careful consideration of the social, political and economic effect of the incursion of those people. We have the matter continually under review. We have to consider taking people from various foreign countries, but our first consideration is safeguarding the wellbeing of the people there now. We shall not do anything which in our view would act against their interests.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) asked about the North Borneo Charter Company. That matter is under arbitration and we are waiting for the report of the arbitrators. We hope the whole matter will be concluded in a short space of time. We certainly want to clear it up and put the financial and other matters on a proper basis.

Sir J. Barlow: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate when the report is likely to be available? If I remember rightly, the arbitration has been going on for three years, or more.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Vast numbers of subjects had to be considered by the arbitrators, but my right hon. Friend prompts me that possibly the report may be available within a few weeks and I hope that will be so.
I am grateful to hon. Members who have raised various points about British Somaliland. I do not think any special question was asked, but I think they approved of the projects we have in mind there and confirmed what I said in regard to interchangeability of officers of the Service. The present Governor of British Somaliland, Mr. Reece, was formerly the provincial commissioner in the Northern district of Kenya where problems are similar to those in British Somaliland; it is a country where we have a nomadic population as in Somaliland.
I was asked questions by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow about unemployment in Honduras. At the end of November, 1948, there were 543 civilians and 102 ex-Service men registered as unemployed. Various schemes are in operation or will shortly


be put into operation. There is an agricultural settlement on an estate known as the "Baking Pot" on which a number of ex-Service men have been settled and it is expected that the numbers will have risen to about 100 by the end of the year. I was asked about reclamation in Belize. Work there has begun on certain land which will absorb about 50 men in about 10 weeks and work on the roads which should provide for about 80 for four months and work on feeder roads under the 10-year development plan. I am sorry that it was not understood by the hon. Member who challenged me on this that the Vote here is really for a grant-in-aid to balance their budget and for schemes which are in operation.
There are plans under the Evans Report which I hope will be presented to the House in the near future. We have done a tremendous amount of work on that and are trying to establish all the various projects suggested in that report, but it is not easy. The Government are starting a dairy farm for which they have bought 1,500 acres. But one of the problems is that people have no agricultural background and we have to import people with an agricultural background to enable this work to be done even on such a thing as dairy farming. I hope that before long we shall be able to inform the House of the present position of the Evans Report recommendations. The road which was mentioned and also the timber schemes all fit into the general picture.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) asked what we were doing about ensuring that Malta should be self-supporting. It is very difficult for us now to do anything. Malta has internal self-government and would resent or at least hardly welcome our butting in and suggesting ways in which they should carry on their duties. I know the Malta Government have been considering various schemes of emigration but that, I must insist, is a matter for them. It is no longer a matter for us.
With regard to St. Lucia and the building, which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) referred to, I can assure him that that will be announced to the House very shortly. We shall be in a position to tell the House exactly what is proposed with regard to its rehabilitation, and I venture to think

that the House will find that we are making very generous terms. St. Lucia will have a very fine city when the plans have been carried out.
With regard to Hong Kong I can only reiterate to the hon. Member for Hornsey and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) what I have already said. These various territories in the Far East which have suffered under enemy bombardment and enemy occupation were all asked to consider these various schemes. The Hong Kong Government thought they would not have one. They decided that the rehabilitation that had gone on since the war, the amount of business in operation in Hong Kong, and the flourishing state of its commerce meant that it was not so necessary as in Malaya and Borneo. That was their decision, and not ours. That being so, surely the hon. Members do not expect us to force a war damage scheme on them. So far as I am aware there has been no great demand from anybody; otherwise it would have been reflected in the Legislative Council who took this decision. They are there on the door step and if there was any agitation it would have been reflected in their decision.

Mr. D. Marshall: I think the point should be taken into consideration that in a number of cases men and women were taken prisoner to Japan and when they were released they came straight to the United Kingdom. They have suffered terrific damage to their own bodies and possessions. It is not a question of being next door to Hong Kong when one is in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rees-Williams: There is a relief fund from which ex gratia payments can be made and if the hon. Member has any hard cases in mind—

Mr. Marshall: I have.

Mr. Rees-Williams: —I suggest he refers them to me.

Mr. Marshall: I have already referred them to the Minister twice in the last year.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Well, any harder cases. As he knows, we were unable to satisfy him about the cases he referred to for certain reasons. But there may be cases which come within the scope—


and many cases have come within the scope—of this particular provision.
As to the defence of Hong Kong, that hardly arises on this Estimate and I have no doubt, Mr. Bowles, that you would rule me out of Order if I tried to deal with it. So with the Hong Kong Aerodrome, I think that is outside the scope of this particular Supplementary Estimate.
With regard to Palestine, so far as I am aware no implicit conditions were made before recognition because it was de facto recognition and those conditions were not applicable. There are no assets from which the particular sums we are dealing with today could be replaced, except funds to which I have referred which are in the hands of our agent in Palestine, and which have been frozen by the Israeli Government. As regards staff, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) the position is that it depends very largely on whether the person has been taken on by the Palestine Government or not. That is perfectly reasonable. If he has been taken on by the Palestine Government there is no reason why the British taxpayer or anybody else should compensate him for the loss of a job which he has not lost. But if he has not been taken on, then he may have a compensatory pension or a cash gratuity in lieu. If he has earned his pension he has it whether he has been taken on or not.
Of the police other ranks, 220 have been accepted by the Metropolitan police; 100 with the county constabularies; 128 with the prison service and 790 have retained various Colonial appointments. Approximately 2,000 men have secured civilian employment or overseas appointments making an approximate total of 3,238. We have heard this year of only ten who have not obtained employment, and considering the large numbers involved the Committee will agree that that is very satisfactory. Those in the Palestine Office who were concerned with this matter should, I think, be congratulated for the efficiency they have shown. It also is a tribute to the high standing of the Palestine police and the magnificent work they did under trying conditions. Many of them are now serving in Malaya and doing a grand job

of work there. I therefore ask the Committee to approve this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Rankin: When my hon. Friend was introducing the Estimate he indicated that he might say a word on anticipated savings.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that savings or anticipated savings cannot be discussed on consideration of a Vote of this kind.

Mr. Edward Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his statement regarding the staff, could he tell me whether it is a recurring charge?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The particular item to which the hon. Member referred, (d), is not a recurring charge. It was an item relating to moneys expended on compensation during a particular period.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,695,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid.

CLASS

WEST AFRICAN PRODUCE CONTROL BOARD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the West African Produce Control Board, including the cost of trading services; and for grants in aid of sums equivalent to accumulated profits realised under the West African cocoa control scheme for allocation to the Governments of the Gold Coast, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and to accumulated funds under the West African oils and oilseeds control scheme for allocation to those Governments and the Government of the Gambia."—[Mr. Rees-Williams.]

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Secretary of State, in reply to a Question in the House on 30th July, 1948, said that it was proposed in 1949 to establish marketing boards in West Africa to take over


from the West African Produce Control Board the responsibility for marketing oilseeds. This incidentally relieves me of an obligation, because I am the chairman ex officio of the Board. These arrangements have since progressed. The actual date of transfer will be different for the various territories. In Nigeria, the major producing territory involved, the new organisation will, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, take over about 1st April I should think, but that is not certain.
As the House was informed, since 1947 the prices paid by the West African Produce Control Board to the producer have been less than the prices at which the produce was sold even after paying freight and other charges. The balance accrued to the Exchequer as a surplus on the trading account of the Board and the present estimate is presented in order to obtain the authority of Parliament for the payment of an amount equivalent to the major portion of this surplus to the West African Governments for the new Boards. The total amount of the surplus up to 30th March, 1949, is now estimated at £17 million. The balance of this amount, together with the amounts accruing thereafter, will be included in the Estimate for 1949–50. The surplus has been accumulated in the following circumstances, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), whom we do not often see during these Debates, is present to hear them.
During the war, as there were no world prices on which to base selling prices, the policy was adopted of fixing the price to the producer at a level which would ensure maximum production whilst avoiding, as far as possible, domestic inflation. All purchases were passed to the Ministry of Food at cost. By the end of 1946, and particularly following the removal of the United States price ceilings in the Autumn of that year, international trade in oilseeds began to re-establish itself and world prices rose rapidly. It became apparent that, in spite of the steady increases made during the war years, the prices fixed for West African oilseed were becoming increasingly out of line with world prices so far as they were ascertainable. For internal economic reasons in West Africa, it was not felt that producer prices could be increased immediately to the equivalent

of world prices, such as they were, although it is very difficult in these circumstances to fix a world price, because so often the only price available is a marginal price.
It was also felt important that during the period of relatively high prices some portion of the proceeds should be set aside as a price stabilisation fund. Since 1947, therefore, whilst the Ministry of Food's buying prices have been brought as closely as possible into line with outside market values for equivalent products, a portion of the proceeds of sale has been steadily placed to reserve. This is in line with our general policy in order to set up these funds, which have been accumulated to a considerable extent. The last figure I saw, which was quite a recent one, was that there were some £81 million now in various funds throughout the Empire for this purpose. The purpose for which they will be used is to provide producers with a cushion against a future fall in the world price of oilseeds and to protect them, as far as possible, from any sudden or extreme drop in the return received for their produce.
Secondly, the funds are available to finance development and research in the areas of production and they have been so used not only in the case of oilseeds but in connection with other commodities. I mentioned that I hoped that the necessary legislation would be passed soon, and I have given the date as it affects Nigeria. If necessary, I can give the date for the other areas. I have also details about selling prices per ton and it might interest hon. Members to have details so that they can see the sort of reserve which has been built up. The details show: groundnuts, 1948–49 crop, decorticated £55 a ton; undecorticated, £46 10s. a ton. Typical buying prices for the crop are, decorticated, £19 4s., and the approximate amount added to reserve is £19 per ton. All these prices are c. and f. because the Ministry of Food carries its own insurance. The selling price of the 1949 shipment of palm kernels was £50 a ton and the buying price was £26, the amount placed to reserve being £12. The price for palm oil was £75 a ton, the buying price £42 5s. a ton and the amount placed to reserve was £15.
We anticipate that the total amount from West Africa will be 350,000 to 380,000 tons of decorticated groundnuts, 150,000 tons of palm oil and 450,000 to 475,000 tons of palm kernels. All these products are of immense importance to the Empire as a whole and also to the people of this country. They provide many of the fats, soaps and other articles so dear to the hearts of the housewife. I therefore hope that the Committee will give this Estimate its blessing.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I want to say only a few words on this subject. Of course, this is not really an expenditure in the ordinary sense. This is merely the transfer of profits which have accumulated over a number of years and which, owing to the different system set up in West Africa, are now no longer to be retained by the Treasury. I was partially responsible, in the days of the war, not only for this scheme but for similar schemes in cocoa and cotton in Uganda. I still feel that in the circumstances it was the right way to handle the difficulties of the moment.
But certainly at that time we never anticipated that the sums which were to be withheld, for that is what they are—they are being withheld from the actual producers of the goods—would attain these quantities or be withheld for such a long time. There is a danger in making this cushion too big and this reserve too large, although it is true that the Government can say, as they honestly will, that they will spend this money in the locality or in the interests of a particular sort of producers. That expenditure is apt to seem a little indirect to the farmer on the spot compared with a slight addition to his price.
Although I do not think that the time has yet come to reverse projects of this kind, I think that this new organisation taking over this scheme in West Africa, as well as the organisations running the other schemes, ought to consider whether the time has not come when rather more of the profit being made could with safety be given to the producer and rather less retained in a pool which I agree is for their ultimate benefit. That, of course, is linked up with another question which is far beyond the scope of this Debate, and that is

the ability to give consumer goods. If only we could give consumer goods, the danger of inflation would tend to disappear and we could safely increase the money to the producer. That, however, is a wider topic which we shall have to discuss on some other occasion.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: I am surprised at the tone of the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). I had rather expected that on this issue the long expected all-out attack on the Government's policy would materialise—

Mr. Stanley: I never expect very much from the hon. Gentleman, but today he has fallen below even my expectation. I explained to the Committee. I thought it unnecessary, but I did explain to the Committee. Now I see that it was necessary from the point of view of the hon. Member, who does not appear to understand at all. These are accumulated profits of the past which have simply been transferred from one Government Department to an organisation outside.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, but if the right hon. Gentleman had allowed me to explain the reason for my remarks, he would have learned that what we are, after all, discussing today is simply a very successful example of bulk purchase and organised marketing. In the last few weeks, I have on a number of occasions addressed gatherings at which supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite have been repeating silly parrot cries against precisely that kind of bulk purchase of which this scheme is an example.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Ropner): The hon. Gentleman must not raise the whole question of bulk purchase on this Estimate.

Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to raise the whole question, but to confine my remarks to the particular case of bulk purchase with which this £13 million is concerned. I wish to go a little further into this particuar example and to consider its effects. What effect has it had upon this country? It has already increased the supplies of oil seeds and vegetable oils and the export of groundnuts from Nigeria, which has trebled in the last five years, and has also increased the supplies of palm oil and palm oil


products. It has meant vastly improved prices for the Colonial producers and some guarantee of stable markets for their produce.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May we have it laid down quite clearly what we may discuss on these Supplementary Estimates? The hon. Gentleman is claiming that he can discuss policy and is giving his views about bulk purchase. I have always understood that, on the Supplementary Estimates, we cannot discuss policy.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will not be in Order in discussing policy on the Supplementary Estimates. As I have already indicated, he is going a little too far.

Mr. Hughes: The only issue which I have touched upon does arise on this Supplementary Estimate of £13 million, and it is only this Estimate and the transactions which arise in connection with it that I wish to discuss. It is precisely this system that has led to increased production in West Africa and to vastly improved prices for Colonial producers, who were desperately impoverished in the period prior to the introduction of this scheme. The Under-Secretary gave various examples of prices, all of which I was not able to follow, but it is quite clear that, as a result of this scheme, the producer in Nigeria today is getting something like a reasonable standard of living, which is vastly better than he enjoyed before.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is out of Order and must obey my Ruling. Those questions to which he is now addressing himself, do not arise on the Estimate before the Committee.

Mr. Hughes: If I may, I will pass from that point to a second point which I wish to make on this issue. We are handing over £13 million to the Governments of Nigeria and other associated Colonies. That is going to have a very striking impact on the economies of those territories. That money is going to be spent in establishing stabilisation funds and in other expenditure of benefit to the producers of palm oil and groundnuts in these territories. This sum of £13 million is an enormous one in relation to the economies of these territories.
If we take Nigeria alone, the total budget of that Colony is something in

the nature of £20 million, and this sum coming into the territory is almost equivalent to the total annual revenue. The money to be received by these territories under this scheme is vastly in excess of what they will be receiving under the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. Much of this money will be reserved for stabilisation purposes, which will be of tremendous importance, but there will be a good deal over for other forms of expenditure, and it seems to me of great importance that some thought should be given as to how this money will be expended in the Colony and how it will be related to the ordinary budgetary expenditure of the Colony and the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund.
It has been stated by the Under-Secretary that one important point arises concerning the amount to be handed over directly to the individual producer, compared with what is retained up to the present by the Produce Control Board, and, shortly, by the Marketing Boards in the Colonies, for what may be called collective expenditure. The individual producer is getting a much better price today, and is receiving something like £19 for groundnuts compared with the £3 which was all he got in 1938. Therefore, it is quite clear that, from that point of view, he is better off, and there is already some inflationary danger in the Colonial territories from the amount of money being handed over.

The Temporary Chairman: I really must ask the hon. Member to keep to the item which is before the Committee, as he is now out of Order again. It is not possible to rule from this Chair that an hon. Member is out of Order until he has already gone a considerable distance. I hope he will bear that in mind in the remainder of his speech; otherwise, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Hughes: I am anxious to keep within your Ruling, Colonel Ropner, and I will therefore leave the question of price and deal solely with the sums available for collective expenditure arising from the Produce Control Board and its successors.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: On a point of Order. May I ask how far we can go in discussing these Supplementary Estimates? Is it not correct to say that we are discussing the amount which has


accumulated, which has been described as a reserve from the sales of West African produce, and has already been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Is it not quite right for us to take account of the prices paid to the producers? I should have thought that, since the right hon. Gentleman opposite was at pains to discuss that very point, my hon. Friend would be correct in drawing attention to the prices paid at different periods to the producers in West Africa, and in relating that matter to the present Vote.

The Temporary Chairman: I should prefer to allow the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech, and I will tell him whether he is in Order or not.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that we cannot discuss these Estimates in relation to the disposal of this very impressive sum?

The Temporary Chairman: Yes, I think that is so.

Mr. Hughes: With respect, Colonel Ropner, the position is that we are handing over £13 million under this scheme, and this is the first opportunity which this House has had for a discussion of the impact of this scheme on the Colonial territories themselves, which is of tremendous importance. It is also the last opportunity which we shall have, and, without in any way seeking to evade your Ruling, may I ask for my own guidance whether it is in fact in Order to discuss the ways in which this money can be used in the Colonial Territories?

The Temporary Chairman: If I apprehend completely the question which the hon. Gentleman asks me, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. Hughes: If I may, I will proceed, and, if I trespass again it will be unwittingly. There is this sum of £13 million, and it is quite clear that that is of profound significance to these territories. It would seem to be important that some message of goodwill should go from this Committee to the Colonial Governments and the people involved, and I hope that we may express the wish that this money will be used constructively and actively for the benefit of these territories.
Some of the points which seem to arise are these. This money is to be used for

the benefit of the oilseeds producing interests. One thing which is desperately needed is research into the problems of improving methods of oil production. At present, as I understand it, expenditure on research, for which this money will be available in the future, is limited in Nigeria to something like £152,000 under the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. The Oil Palm Research Station is struggling with a staff of six, whereas it requires a staff of 16 or more to carry out its present plans. Therefore, I hope that the authorities who will be dealing with the disposal of this fund will bear very carefully in mind the requirements of research to raise the standards of production.

The Temporary Chairman: May I suggest to the hon. Member that he reserves his speech for the main Estimate on the salary of the Secretary of State? Then I think he will be in Order.

6.52 p.m.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I hope that I can keep within the bounds of Order for the next few minutes, Colonel Ropner. I should like to introduce a spirit of tranquillity into this Debate. If the Press is going to take any notice of this Debate tonight, I think that probably the finest advertisement for this Committee would be the utmost publicity for the fact that this sum of £13 million is to be disposed of in the way that the Under-Secretary has mentioned. I am viewing you, Colonel Ropner, with great apprehension.
In these days when in certain parts of the world strictures are made on this country for its present and former activities in the Commonwealth and Empire, I think that many of our critics would be dumbfounded if they realised the significance of the work which is being carried out in the expenditure of this money, not only by this Government but by the Government of which the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) was a Member and which, as he told us, instituted this arrangement during the war years. It is a very fine thing that the old idea of Empire is not being carried out in this instance—that it is not simply a source of wealth to those who own the land, but that people are being encouraged under a system of tutelage, to make the best of their territory.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. and gallant Member knows that he is out of Order. I must ask him to deal with the Estimate which is before the Committee.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: This Estimate relates to money which has been saved on behalf of people who are not in a position to save it themselves, and now it is to be given back to them to enable them to make further progress. Their territory will be all the richer for the work done by our Commissioners, our Government representatives and the Colonial Office. That is a matter of which we ought to be very proud. I only regret that it is not possible to go further into the matter tonight and discuss what has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for West Bristol—namely, how the money could be used if world conditions were better. However, it is a source of great hope to some of us that this will not be the only scheme of its kind but that throughout many parts of the Empire which we shall be discussing later, we shall see more schemes which will redound to the benefit of all in the Commonwealth and Empire.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The item which we are now discussing has been described as a transfer of a current item. As I understand it, it is a credit which rightly belongs to four Colonial Governments and is derived as a trading profit from oilseeds and oils. I should like to stress something which the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said earlier. He emphasised the point that while it is admirable to have this surplus—and the Government ought to be congratulated on making it available for the Colonial Governments—there is a danger in having a fund like this if it means that the producers of the primary products feel a sense of injustice that they are not getting the proper price for their produce.
Some of us know that in West Africa, for instance, while there has been a much better price paid for oilseeds and oils, there has been a great hiatus between the world price and the price paid to the producer. While it is excellent that there should be some provision, as explained on page 34 of the Estimates, for the
future marketing arrangements and other purposes of benefit to the oils and oilseeds producing interests in the respective territories.

and while undoubtedly there has to be a great deal of research and the cushioning, as it has been described, against bad times, we must be careful that we do not build up a fund in such a way that it will be regarded as a blanket to smother the enterprise of the people on the spot. I hope that we shall try to keep a sense of balance between the price paid to the producer and the reserve which goes to build up the fund in this way.
I am not quite clear on this point, but I take it that the intention is that when this amount is disbursed to the several Governments, it is to provide for the future development of the industry; and that we consider that it is wise not to pay the producer all the money because of the danger of inflation and the problem of consumer goods. However, perhaps the Minister will tell us that account will be taken of such problems as are being experienced on the Gold Coast and elsewhere, where disease is affecting some of the trees, and that some provision will be made for compensation out of such a fund. In short, could we be told more about what is intended to be done with the fund? The news that the British Government are not getting a "rake off" from these primary products in Africa, but are honest and above board in putting the money back into the country in this way, will be welcomed in the Colonial territories and will do much to establish happy relations between the people in those territories and ourselves.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I appreciate that we are confined to a very narrow scope in this Debate. However, I presume that it is in Order briefly to refer to certain statements which were made by the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter referred to the fact that the moneys from which such a large sum has accrued are for the benefit of the people in this country in providing them with very valuable fats. I am quite sure the Under-Secretary will agree that we must consider the expenditure of these moneys in terms of abundance not merely to this country but also to West Africa.
That being so, I should like to link up that fact with the remarks of the right hon. Member for West Bristol, who claimed that it was largely due to him


that during the war this excellent principle was put into operation. I congratulate him on supporting that principle now. I hope he will long continue to do so, because out of sheer necessity we find that this particular method of marketing is good for all concerned. For that reason I hope that in this and other ways we shall have the support of the Opposition to all such developments of this kind.
There is one small point on which I should like some illumination, and perhaps the Under-Secretary could help me. I see that in the centre of page 34 the original total Estimate for 1948–49 was £2,044,000, to which has been added the sum of £13 million. I can well understand the larger Estimate being required, but surely there is a considerable disparity between the original Estimate and the additional sum now required. If I could be given some explanation of the reason why the original Estimate was so small, by comparison with the total amount we are now considering, I should be very much obliged.

7.1 p.m.

Dr. Segal: On analysing the figures given to us by the Under-Secretary, one finds that a figure of roughly 20 per cent. of the total selling price has been placed to reserve in each case, both for palm kernels and palm oil. By what means is this figure of 20 per cent. arrived at? Is it purely an arbitrary figure? How does it compare with sums placed to reserve in previous years? In other words, are we finding that a smaller percentage is being placed in reserve than on previous occasions when these Estimates have come before us?
There is another matter upon which I should like to have some enlightenment. It is quite obvious from the figures given by the Under-Secretary that palm kernels are a highly profitable crop. Is he satisfied that the yield we are obtaining at present is the maximum possible one? I ask him to go into more detail when he replies and to let us know to what extent these quantities of palm kernels we are now receiving might be increased by improved methods of transport. If, instead of having transport by foot by which people have to carry palm kernels a distance of 15 to 20 miles, we could have collection by means of mechanical transport, would not we obtain a very much

higher yield and greater profit to this country? There is one other matter. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the Committee that the number of mechanical grinding mills has been increased and—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is really out of Order and he must address his remarks to the Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. Segal: Can the Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps in general terms, give an assurance to the Committee that the yield of palm kernels and palm oil we are obtaining at present is the largest available amount? Finally, of the balance of the selling price which has now been repaid to the territories concerned, what, if any, is the amount which is to be paid to the producers themselves? Is any to go back to the African who carries the palm kernels on his head, or is the whole repayment going into the pockets of the farmers?

7.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): It is not my intention to wind up the Debate, but I am anxious to deal with one of the criticisms which has been made about the method by which these payments are being made. I should be out of Order, I am afraid, if I attempted to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) and I shall confine myself to one or two small points which have been made in the Debate.
The first thing I want to say is that the producers enjoy a very much better arrangement than would be possible if their marketing were left to normal competitive conditions, and consequently the price which they receive for their commodities is very much higher than it was previously. The second point I want to make is that the marketing Board is now being broken up so as to cover the respective Governments and it will be the local producers themselves and their organisations who will be in control in regard to the dispersal of what funds are available. As has been pointed out, the whole desire is to have a cushion to preserve a good price for the producer and to have money available for reserve and for the development of the industry, but this arrangement makes for greater efficiency in the industry and it gives producers a control over the marketing


of their own products. There is no danger whatsoever of a blanketing of the producers because the producers themselves have an effective voice in the manner in which the money is used.
It is on those points that I wished to make the situation clear, although there is one further point I wish to add. The right hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said that possibly the time was coming when the whole of these schemes should be brought into review again. I can say that this particular scheme is comparatively new and these moneys have accumulated only in the past couple of years. Obviously, if this money were released on the country there would be the danger of inflation, but in any case if the producer's price were very much higher there would be a real danger, as consumer goods are not available, that inflation for normal commodities would arise from the high prices and that consequently a very disastrous and difficult situation would overtake the economy of the country.
I want to assure the right hon. Member for West Bristol that the point he has raised is continuously in our minds—the question whether these large funds cannot be better utilised and a larger price given to the producer. It is, however, a matter of very great difficulty in the existing economy of the territory to do other than what is being done at the present moment.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the simple technical point which I put to him? I am not quite sure whether the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary is to reply. The point on which I should like a little enlightenment is why the original Estimate falls so far short of the total Estimate now required. Probably there is an obvious explanation.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Obviously the explanation is that at the beginning of the year one cannot estimate how much will come into the coffers during the period. That depends on the crop. This is a transfer item, as the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) has pointed out. This is the amount which will come in for the period about which we are talking and which will be transferred from the Exchequer to the bodies in West Africa.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that when the Estimates were prepared the decision had not been taken to make this transfer and to set up this new organisation? Is that not why no figure appeared in the main Estimates?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We were considering doing it and for some time had been considering it, but we were not certain when it was going to be done and we did not know how much would actually come into the coffers of the Exchequer in this particular period.

7.9 p.m.

Sir W. Smiles: Some of us have felt rather guilty about the large surplus which is piling up in this fund. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) said that this was a wonderful example of the advantage of bulk purchase, but of course the people in the Colony had to submit—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member will also recall that I interrupted the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton when he made that remark.

Sir W. Smiles: At any rate I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State just now that these funds are to be made available very soon for the people who actually toil by the sweat of their brows in a very bad climate to produce these oilseeds. We have been supplying cheap food for the people here while the people out there have not been getting a fair market value for their produce. I was extremely glad to hear the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman tonight, and I am quite sure it will please many of the producers in the Colonies affected.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the West African Produce Control Board, including the cost of trading services; and for grants in aid of sums equivalent to accumulated profits realised under the West African cocoa control scheme for allocation to the Governments of the Gold Coast, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and to accumulated funds under the West African oils and oilseeds control scheme for allocation to those Governments and the Government of the Gambia.

CLASS II

DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (COLONIES, ETC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,950,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the development of the resources of colonies, protectorates, protected states and mandated territories, and the welfare of their peoples.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The further sum required in respect of the development and welfare of Colonies under this Vote is £1,950,000, being £1,500,000 for development schemes and £450,000 for research schemes. Under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, as hon. Members will recollect, the sum of £120 million was made available for schemes to promote development of the resources of the Colonies and the welfare of their peoples over a period of 10 years from 1st April, 1946, subject to the moneys being provided by Parliament under the Development and Welfare Vote.
During the first two years of the currency of the Act, its implementation has been retarded by world shortages of supplies, particularly of building and road making materials and heavy plant and equipment, and also by the difficulties of recruiting trained and qualified staff. As a result, issues under the Act amounted to only £3,546,688 in 1946 and 1947, and £5,127,797 in 1947 and 1948, excluding Colonial Development Residual Schemes, although grants and loans totalling £21,729,236 were approved under the Act during those two years. So the Committee will see how far short of the loans which had been approved were those loans which were actually taken up and spent.
When the 1948 to 1949 Estimates were prepared, it was considered, in the light of the supply and manpower position, and of the rate of spending in the previous years, that the expenditure under the Act would not exceed £4,310,000. Since then, however, due to the marked improvement in the supply position, and in particular to the sustained efforts which have been made, we have succeeded in having a larger allocation of scarce commodities to meet Colonial needs, and the situation has undergone a considerable change. For instance, the allocation of

steel has been greatly increased. Up to mid-1948 the Colonies were receiving annually some 75,000 tons of controlled steel from the United Kingdom, consisting of about 60,000 tons of general and sheet steel allocated to the Board of Trade for export—that is the steel known as B.E.X. steel—and 15,000 tons of structural steel allocated to the Ministry of Supply.
In the fourth quarter of 1948 the Colonial share of the B.E.X. allocation—that is, the Board of Trade allocation—was increased to a rate of 100,000 tons a year, and from the first period of 1949 this was further increased to a rate of 140,000 tons a year. We have every hope that in the last six months it will go up to 180,000. That is only a hope; it is in no sense, as we are constantly reminded, an allocation, but merely a hope. The Colonial share of the Ministry of Supply's allocation of structural steel has also been raised to a rate of about 44,000 tons a year. Controlled steel should therefore be going to the Colonies at a rate of 185,000 tons a year compared with a rate of 75,000 tons a year ago. That is a fine contribution that we are making. We must realize—this is one of the difficulties about steel—that the Colonies before the war obtained about 50 per cent. of their steel from this country and 50 per cent. from foreign countries. We are, of course, now providing more than our pre-war quota of steel, but they are not able to get any from foreign countries.
Supplies of cement have also increased, and the programme of shipments from the United Kingdom—

The Temporary Chairman: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State how he relates the remarks he is now making to the Supplementary Estimate. I ought to know, for the sake of the conduct of the remainder of the Debate on this Vote.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The position is this. We are now able to spend more money than had been anticipated, and I am explaining why we are able to spend it, owing to the fact that, due largely to the efforts of the Government, we have made more supplies of steel and cement—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What about the steel industry?

Mr. Rees-Williams: And the industry, too. Because of the magnificent efforts of the workers and others in the steel industry and because of the efforts of the Government we are able to spend more money than we had anticipated spending, and it is because steel and other commodities are now available to us that we have to come to the Committee to ask for an additional expenditure. I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Ropner, but I should have thought that I was in Order.

The Temporary Chairman: I have made no Ruling. I asked the hon. Gentleman to inform me, for my own guidance, how he related his remarks to the Estimate.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Supplies of cement have also increased, and the programme of shipments from the United Kingdom has risen from 396,000 tons in 1947 to 594,000 tons in 1948 and 850,000 tons in 1949. Fertilisers have become available in much larger quantities, and there was a progressive improvement over the last three years in the supply of plant and equipment for such schemes as water supplies, roads, electricity and agricultural developments. These improvements affect not merely Colonial Development and Welfare Schemes but also the general economy of the Colonial territories. However, I realise that I must not go into that aspect of the matter, but must confine myself to the Supplementary Vote with which we are dealing.
The reason why the demands for payments under the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote have been so substantially behind the target is, that many of the major schemes, which contain provision for the cost of building and equipping various types of works, have fallen behind, and this applies to the research schemes as well. We have had great difficulty in getting the necessary materials for building and equipping research laboratories, and for buildings for housing the research staff, and there has been also a grave shortage of scientists during these years. I would say that one of our greatest problems at the moment is the provision of scientists and of technicians of every grade, and this is a shortage which cannot be made good in a matter of months, or even in a year or two, for it depends to such a large extent upon the output of the universities and other training schools. The position

in regard to equipment for the building and equipping of laboratories has improved, with the result that there is a happier position in research schemes than under general schemes of Colonial development and welfare.
I do not want to make any party point, otherwise I might incur the umbrage of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and our proceedings up to now have been very harmonious, but it is a fact that in many parts of the Colonial territory there is very little knowledge of the mineral resources and, therefore, we have to spend a lot of time and money on mapping the territories and on having various types of mineralogical surveys and the like—tapping rivers to ascertain their flow and a hundred and one other things of that kind. Therefore, we are able to spend on research very nearly the whole of the £1 million during the year 1949–50 which is authorised under the Act. Undoubtedly the position will be for the next few years that we shall be spending right up to the ceiling on research and it may be necessary to ask Parliament even to raise that ceiling at a later date.
The position with regard to research is now quite different to the position with regard to the rest of the Colonial and welfare schemes because we must get on with the research schemes before the other schemes, whether educational, economic or social can come into operation. The Committee is probably more aware of the work which has been done under the development section of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act than under the research section of the Act, because it is rather more obvious. When one sees a school going up, it is more obvious than a scientist working in a laboratory who is stuck away somewhere and whom no one ever sees. Therefore, the Committee may be interested to hear of some of the projects on which the money is being spent.
We have made considerable progress in the promotion of research schemes during the last two or three years, particularly in the field of agriculture, veterinary, fisheries and insecticides. The policy of the Colonial Office is to promote major research in this and other fields wherever possible on a regional basis and not on a Colonial basis, so as to get the Colonial Governments concerned


to contribute as much as they can towards the recurrent cost, the remainder of the cost and the whole of the capital expenditure being found from Colonial Development and Welfare Research moneys. It is impossible and it would be wasteful for, say, four East African Governments to each have a veterinary, and agricultural—

The Temporary Chairman: Is not the hon. Gentleman now discussing his main policy?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Perhaps I was going a little astray. I will come back to the schemes which have been made, and which, I think, I can cite. In agriculture, there is the establishment of the East African Agricultural and Veterinary Research organisation, the projected scheme for the establishment of the West African Agricultural and Veterinary Research organisation, the projected scheme for the establishment of the Agricultural and Veterinary Regional organisations for Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak; and researches on cocoa, soils, bananas and sugar technology at the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad. That is an example of what I was saying about these regional organisations under the policy of the Department. So far as fisheries are concerned, there is the establishment of the West African Marine Fisheries Research Institute at Freetown, the establishment of a fish farming Research Station at Penang, Malaya, the establishment of a Marine Fisheries Research Station at Singapore, which is a projected scheme, the establishment of a Fisheries Research Organisation to serve Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the establishment of an East African Marine Fisheries Station, and the establishment of a Marine Fisheries Research Station in Hong Kong.
In the medical field, there is the taking over as a British responsibility at the end of 1949 of the Rockefeller Foundation Yellow Fever Research Institutes in Lagos and Entebbe, the acquisition of the Sir Alfred Jones Research Laboratory in Freetown, the creation of the East African Bureau of Hygiene and Medical Research, the creation of an East African Medical Survey, extensive helminthiasis research in West Africa, and the establishment of research institutes to serve East and West Africa.
Under the heading of locusts, there is the maintenance of the extremely successful campaigns against locusts conducted under the auspices of the Anti-Locust Research Centre. We have for the first time in history, I think, really managed to get the better of the red, the desert and the migratory locusts. Then there is tsetse and trypanosomiasis research, and the establishment of research institutes in East and West Africa, and the maintenance of the work of the Colonial Insecticides Committee at Porton in the United Kingdom and in East Africa and Mauritius. This work is increasing in importance daily and these insecticides will go into battle against the tsetse fly in conjunction with the new drug of antrycide.
In social science, there is assistance towards the maintenance of the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, and the creation of Institutes of Social and Economic Research in the West Indies, West Africa and East Africa. There is also the creation last year of the Institution of the Colonial Microbiological Institute in Trinidad, and the maintenance of the varied activities of the Colonial Products Research Council. A large number of schemes of economic research are in the air and have not so far come to fruition and I should not be in Order in mentioning them.
We are likely to attract more scientists than we have done for these schemes when the projected Colonial Research Service comes into being shortly. Generally, I think that the need for the Supplementary Estimate on this subject should be a matter for satisfaction rather than for regret. Obviously, if we were spending the full amount which we are entitled to spend under the Act we would now be spending £12 million a year.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is completely out of Order. The Estimate only goes up to the 31st March, 1949, and he is not entitled to go into the realms of prophecy.

Mr. Rees-Williams: It is not prophecy, if I may say so. The Act of 1945 assumed that that would be the amount which we would spend per year. We are entitled to spend up to £17½; million a year. I am trying to explain to the Committee that we are not spending nearly as much—

Dr. Morgan: Would my hon. Friend speak a little louder?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I was saying that we are not spending as much under the Act as it was anticipated we should be spending, and I was giving the reasons why we were not spending so much, and saying that it was a matter of congratulation that we were actually spending more than was anticipated when the original Estimates were framed.

The Temporary Chairman: The remark which the hon. Gentleman made and which I recall was that he was hoping to attract more specialists.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am afraid that was a little out of Order. I can give the actual details of the schemes which have been approved since 31st March, 1948. I do not know whether that would be entirely in Order, but if hon. Members would like to know the details of other schemes and the actual monetary value which we have attached to each of them, I can give that information. If it is out of Order to do so tonight, it can always be done by means of a question, or possibly in connection with the Estimates which will be prepared for the next year. I would therefore ask the Committee to grant us the Supplementary Estimate for which we have asked.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry that when my hon. Friend was speaking it was not always possible to follow all that he was saying, so that if it should happen that I put points to him with which he has dealt I trust he will forgive me. It will at least enable him to make clear to the Committee those aspects with which he may have dealt but which were not quite grasped. The first question I wish to put to him refers to the amount spent on research schemes. I take it that all that money is spent centrally, and it would be interesting to know how much of that money is being used—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. We have now been told by the Under-Secretary of specific schemes upon which some of this extra money will be spent. Are we strictly limited to referring to the schemes for which this extra expenditure is being asked and only to such schemes?

The Temporary Chairman: That is so, but it was not easy to tell from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State which of the schemes to which he referred came under the heading of this item.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Further to that point of Order. It struck me that the only thing which the Under-Secretary did not give was the list of schemes approved since the last main Estimate, and which we are now supposed to be discussing. Would he give us that?

The Temporary Chairman: Criticism of the Minister's speech is not a point of Order.

Dr. Morgan: Further to that point of Order. In spite of what the Minister may say on a particular Vote, is this not in fact a Vote concerned with development and welfare schemes and also a certain amount on research schemes? Surely, in spite of these particular items of which mention has been made, we are entitled to discuss all matters within development and research schemes.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is quite wrong. Debate on Supplementary Estimates must be confined to expenses incurred on the matters which the Supplementary Estimate covers.

Dr. Morgan: With great respect, may I point out that it is stated:
Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1949 for the development of the resources of colonies, protectorates, protected states and mandated territories, and the welfare of their peoples.

The Temporary Chairman: That is so, but it is not possible, when considering a Supplementary Estimate, to debate the whole field which is covered by the main Estimate. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to what is covered by the Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. Morgan: With respect, I am asking whether the discussion is confined to the terms of the Supplementary Estimate as printed in the Vote?

The Temporary Chairman: Yes.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Further to the point of Order. Since the Under-Secretary has not told us how the money is to be distributed, and without desiring to criticise his speech and recognizing


that he offered to give us the information, might I point out that we are in rather a difficulty?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Perhaps I can clear up this point. It would be difficult, without quite a lot of financial inquiry, to allocate specifically here and now the exact amount on the various individual schemes. The amount for which I am asking is that which it is calculated will be required to cover schemes by the Colonial Governments up to the end of the financial year.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order. I seek your guidance, Colonel Ropner, as to the position we have reached. I was under what was perhaps the misapprehension that I had the ear of the Committee. I have been pushed out by points of Order to which I willingly submitted, but now my hon. Friend steps in and obliterates me altogether. Is he making a speech or am I?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member has caught my eye.

Mr. Rankin: I hope that my hon. Friend will have plenty of opportunity to deal with the points which he wishes to put before the Committee. The point which I was seeking to make was that we have here a revised estimate of £750,000 for research schemes, and it seemed to me pertinent to inquire what amount of this revised expenditure is to be devoted to the training of the Africans themselves, in the carrying out of these schemes. That seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate inquiry to make in regard to this part of the Estimate. I assume that all this is central expenditure. When I was looking at it I recollected the Debate which we had a week ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) raised what was admitted in all quarters of the House to be a most important problem in the economy of Africa, namely, erosion. No one denied its urgency. No one denied the importance of the nature of the problem and—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Colonel Ropner, whether I should be in Order in asking the Under-Secretary to say how much money of this Supplementary Estimate is being devoted to the prevention of erosion,

and, if there is no such sum, would I be in Order in saying that the hon. Member is wholly out of Order?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member would not be in Order in asking any question unless he caught my eye. At the same time the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) is going rather wide of the matters under discussion.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) merely anticipated me. I intended to put exactly the question which he put.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Further to that point of Order.

Mr. Rankin: This looks like a conspiracy.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary has given us the particulars of this Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Rankin: No.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Yes. Are we not entitled, therefore, only to raise questions in respect of those services on which the money is to be spent, and is it not out of Order to ask hypothetical questions as to whether additional money is to be spent on other matters?

The Temporary Chairman: It is not easy to give a Ruling as to what is or is not in Order in a Debate on Supplementary Estimates before speeches are made, but for the guidance of the Committee I would point out that where the revised Estimate is so much larger than the original Estimate, as in the case of the amount under "C," it is in accordance with precedent that the Debate should be allowed to range rather more widely than would otherwise be the case.

Mr. Rankin: I do not press my point, but it seems important that we should know how much of this money is being spent on research for the prevention of erosion in certain parts of Africa.
There is a further question I wish to ask my hon. Friend. Will he tell us how much of the money in connection with Development and Welfare Schemes is being spent centrally and how much is going to local governments? It seems to me that, welcome as the amount to be


spent is, it is fantastically small compared with the amount we aim to spend on the 10-year plan. It looks as if 20 years will have to elapse before we complete that plan if this revised Estimate is to be taken as a criterion. There is a further example of this underspending in connection with the 10-year educational plan for Kenya that was issued in 1948. I appreciate that a good deal of the money involved is being locally contributed, but the fact remains that some part comes from Colonial development funds. It is worth noting the criticism made of the smallness of the expenditure allocated to the Kenya plan:
The financial ceiling, imposed by the development and reconstruction authority, was too low to enable any reasonable plan to be framed at all.
It is important, therefore, that where local restrictions are imposed the central authority should be prepared to assist rather more liberally than they are prepared to do according to the Estimates now before us. I agree that a lot of money is going to Kenya, but I doubt whether enough money is being provided for educational purposes. I know it may be argued that the problem is a materials one, but if I understood my hon. Friend correctly he disposed of that. In any case, I do not think the problem is chiefly one of materials, because the grants-in-aid can be used for existing educational institutions which will enable them to develop more easily than at the present time. While the materials problem does exist, it is the financial problem that is the important one. We could make educational advance in Kenya easier if we showed a more generous attitude in our approach to this problem.

Mr. Awbery: On a point of Order. Are we confined in this Debate to the subjects mentioned by the Under-Secretary, or can we deal generally with Colonial welfare?

The Temporary Chairman: The answer to the second part of the question is "no." In reply to the first part of the question, I am not sure that I shall be in Order in allowing a discussion to range over all the subjects mentioned by the Under-Secretary. Generally speaking, the Debate should be confined to the Estimates immediately before the Committee.

Dr. Morgan: Further to that point of Order. When I asked you earlier, Colonel Ropner, in view of the fact that this is a Supplementary Estimate involving £2 million for
the development of the resources of the colonies, protectorates, protected states and mandated territories, and the welfare of their peoples,
whether it would be in Order to discuss the welfare of the peoples you said "Yes," but I now find that there is a clash between the Ruling you gave then and the Ruling you have just given. I may be wrong, but I submit that, having regard to the huge sums involved and according to the terms of this Vote, Members can, according to Parliamentary procedure, discuss any matters affecting the welfare of the peoples.

The Temporary Chairman: Erskine May states:
Debate on supplementary and excess grants is restricted to the particulars contained in the estimates … debate cannot touch the policy or the expenditure sanctioned, on other heads, by the estimate on which the original grant was obtained.
That is the procedure I must enforce to the best of my ability. It is not possible to say in advance of speeches exactly what will be in Order and what will not be in Order on Supplementary Estimates such as those that are before the Committee. I have tried to give some guidance by saying that it is necessary to restrict the course of the Debate under "B" on the lines I have indicated, but that as the amount required under "C" is so much as compared with the original Estimate, I feel justified in allowing a Debate that might include matters of general policy.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The total which we are considering is almost £2 million, and it is additional to the original vote of £4 million. Thus the picture which we see before us is that the Colonial Office is asking for a Supplementary Estimate to spend a sum of money which is about half of the average allocated for the development of the Colonies. In my view, the sums now before us for consideration are inadequate for the job, and the Under-Secretary would agree. He asked us, however, to appreciate that inasmuch as £1,500,000 is being spent on development and welfare schemes, it


indicates that there are more materials coming forward and that the work is getting in hand, which is a matter for congratulation. On that we agree with him.
I want to deal for a moment with Vote C, which deals with research schemes, and about which we have a little more latitude, because it is of basic importance to know what it is we intend to do with this money. Some of us feel that if the Colonies are to be developed some fundamental research has got to be done in most of them. We believe that there are great resources, the limits of which are yet unknown, and if the Vote today is intended to provide facilities for that to be done we welcome it. I want to ask a question about research, to which reference was made in a leaderette in "The Times" this morning, where we are told that under Economic Co-operation Administration it is now proposed to provide the staff not from our own research fund but to do it by some kind of arrangement with America under E.C.A., and have service of 50 scientists, 25 of whom I understand are to be geologists, and 25 of whom—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. As we were told yesterday that the geologists are to be paid for out of Marshall Aid, how can this expense possibly come in under this Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Davies: It is a point I am putting, so that the research which we are considering under this Vote would take account of work of that character. If the work is being done by some extraterritorial body such as the one I have mentioned, surely the necessity for the Vote will not arise. Colonel Ropner, will you guide us on that point?

The Temporary Chairman: If the payments are being made out of Marshall Aid it clearly means that the remarks of the hon. Member are out of Order.

Mr. Davies: The point I am seeking to establish is that it may be one of a number of arrangements, whereby the work of research and survey is being handed over to some other body. That is a matter of vital interest for the consideration of this matter.

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member a little by

saying that it is not possible on a Supplementary Estimate to refer to savings.

Mr. Davies: Then we will refer to expenditure, which in this case is for £450,000. The point I am seeking to make is, that if the work is to be done by outside bodies why is it necessary to make this request for £450,000? In short, can we have some information on what is being done by the Colonial Office in consultation with the other Governments and the Economic Co-operative Administration in this matter.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Dumpleton: I want to raise a small but not unimportant point on the Vote in connection with research schemes. The Under-Secretary gave us some examples of some of the schemes covered by this Vote, and those of us who have read the very interesting annual report of the Colonial Research Council know what a tremendous amount of research is going on in the Colonial territories and has been for the last two or three years. Some of them are by the permanent research stations that have been set up, such as the Marine Research Station in Sierra Leone, some by teams of scientists spending a considerable time in the territories, and others by single individuals carrying out ad hoc schemes under Colonial research fellowships.
The question I should like to ask is, what happens to the reports of the research workers and the information which they have gathered? We have at the Colonial Office a very valuable information section, which is available to those of us in this Committee who are interested in Colonial matters. It seems to me that it is necessary that some of this information which is gathered by these research workers should be disseminated very widely within the Colonial Service. It is not only a question of the research schemes into the physical resources of the Colonies. I have in mind at the moment the very useful piece of research done by Dr. Tooth in the Gold Coast on juvenile delinquency. There was the Colonial Fellowship in Gambia on the political make-up of the communities in Gambia, which was done by Mr. Gamble. Are these reports filed in the dusty archives of the Colonial Office and available only to the members of the Research Council? Should there not be publication of this information in a


journal which would make it far more widespread and available than it seems to be at the moment.

7.58 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I should like to have some information as to the welfare schemes in hand. I am thinking particularly of the schemes associated with the medical care of the people involved, and also of research associated with nutrition. The work that has been done these last few years has increased tenfold and also in quality, and all of us are very well aware of this fact. But some of us are conscious of the fact that native populations do not always reap benefit from our civilisation, certainly not for the first few generations. Therefore, I should like to ask if there is any specific information as to whether there is any improvement in regard to pulmonary tuberculosis, and what is being done in the Colonies to stamp out venereal disease, a recent affliction, speaking in terms of 50 or 100 years, so far as these native people are concerned. If they were ever addicted in the past to this type of affliction, it was a disease which they had conquered, and which had disappeared as a killing disease amongst them. We ourselves are responsible for any new type of affliction, and we should be particularly sensitive to rid them of it. What work is being done in this respect?
I remember observations which were made by previous Governments in the thirties showed a most lamentable state of affairs so far as nutrition of the people in Africa was concerned. In one great mining area, if my memory serves me correctly, labourers whose average age was about 24 or 25 were dying at the rate of about 56 per thousand per annum. It was impossible to get them to carry on their work. The morbidity and sickness rate was so high that the firm employing them was unable to make profits until they brought in medical men and physiologists, who told them that the men were suffering from the grossest forms of malnutrition.
As a result of improvement of the diet and other welfare work, within four years that death rate had fallen from 56 to eight per 1,000. Are we intimately concerning ourselves in a very wide way with problems of this description? We cannot be concerned to know only how much tin

and copper comes out of the area and how much the area suffers from soil erosion. Our great responsibility is the primary human material. If our civilisation is worth anything at all we must show the whole world that we accept our full responsibility in all these directions.
Now for a word about tuberculosis. The subject is very important because the tuberculosis bacillus has ravaged the whole continent. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that some of the medical men who went out there, no doubt with the best intentions in the world, took preconceptions and prejudices from this country associated with bricks and mortar, and with standards of equipment such as we are accustomed to but which cannot be obtained in our generation in the Colonies—and which are really not necessary in order that the work should commence. Is he not aware that it is possible, if one uses one's inventive genius, one's desire and one's ideals, to tackle the problem of tuberculosis in the Colonies without the expenditure of enormous sums of money?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks much more closely to these two Votes. In a Debate of this kind he cannot allude to the general policy carried out by the Colonial Secretary.

Dr. Stross: I am obliged to you, Mr. Bowles, for your advice. I was thinking that the topic of research was associated with welfare schemes, especially research for the treatment of tuberculosis.

The Deputy-Chairman: Could the hon. Gentleman point out exactly how the subject of research comes under these two Votes? The hon. Gentleman is talking about tuberculosis. Will he explain under which one of these particular Estimates the money is really needed during the concluding two months of this financial year.

Dr. Stross: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he will be as specific as possible and give an assurance to us that as much care will be taken as possible in the eradication of pulmonary tuberculosis and the other diseases which I have mentioned? With that I must be content.

Mr. Awbery: The Committee have been advised that hon. Members must


confine themselves to the statement made by the Under-Secretary, and that we may not go outside his statement.

The Deputy-Chairman: I was not here to hear the Under-Secretary's speech, but I am told by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just vacated the Chair that he called the Under-Secretary of State to Order on one or two occasions himself. The hon. Gentleman may be out of Order if he confines himself to that speech.

Mr. Awbery: The Committee are asked to approve £450,000 for the development of a research station, which no doubt means that factories will be established. We must have Factory Acts and workmen's compensation. I want to know whether matters of that kind can be discussed under this Vote. If you give me your permission to go on I shall do so, but if you rule me out of Order I shall sit down.

The Deputy-Chairman: Those matters would go much too wide.

8.5 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I shall try to keep within the bounds of Order on this Vote. My attention has been directed to the fact that an additional £2 million, which is referred to in the Estimate, relates also to the general subject of the welfare of the Colonial peoples. I want to refer to the research work done in connection with diseases prevalent in many of the areas in which this money is being spent. You ruled just now, Mr. Bowles, that the subject would be out of Order. Let us take the inhalation of dust caused in cane crushing. The residue of this process is a dusty substance called bagasse. The disease caused by its inhalation is called bagassosis. I should like to ask whether any research is included for this work within the terms of the Estimate.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Under-Secretary of State says "Yes," the subject is in Order, and the hon. Member can go on with his speech.

Dr. Morgan: That means that the research must have taken place. Does it mean that if the research has not taken place, I cannot speak on the matter at all?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is so.

Dr. Morgan: Then I shall have to put the points to the Under-Secretary in a series of questions. May I ask the Under-Secretary whether there has been any research concerning the disease known as bagassosis in any of the islands producing and crushing sugar cane?

The Deputy-Chairman: I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that he can only find himself in Order if the Under-Secretary nods his head and says or indicates that this is one of the subjects for which he wants this £2 million. If the Under-Secretary says "No," then the hon. Member is out of Order.

Dr. Morgan: Suppose the Under-Secretary does not nod or shake his head?

The Deputy-Chairman: Then the hon. Gentleman is out of Order. The only person who knows why he wants this money is the Under-Secretary of State. If he does not indicate in the affirmative, obviously the hon. Member for Rochdale is out of Order.

Dr. Morgan: There is very prevalent a condition of deficiency of vitamin, producing a disease called avitaminosis. When I was in the West Indies in 1938 and 1939 that was the case. I want to know whether any research covered by the Vote has taken place on this disease from the medical point of view? There is no answer. I will go on to my third question. Let me take the hookworm disease. The Rockefeller Research Committee which visited Trinadad found that from 75 to 80 per cent. of the population suffered from hookworm disease. Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether any local research has taken place? There is no reply.
I will ask another question. Take again the disease called yaws. In Grenada, for example, I know for a fact that one particular drug was used. It was found that the drug had most wonderful effects in healing up the primary lesions in this condition. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that this drug has now been stopped in the West Indies, any research is taking place with regard to a neighbouring drug, that is a drug almost on the same chemical lines, or any research in connection with a drug of this character for curing yaws in the West Indies?
Perhaps I may go on to another point. Take leprosy. It is not so widespread as it is in West Africa but it has very deleterious effects on the West Indian population. New treatments are being tried. May I ask the Under-Secretary whether in any of the research schemes covered by this Vote there is expenditure for research into leprosy, from the point of view of minimising the growth of the germ or from the point of view of treatment by special drugs. If the Under-Secretary says that there is nothing on this point, I shall have to stop.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Mr. Rees-Williams rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in Order on leprosy.

Dr. Morgan: I hope that I shall not get into a leprous state in consequence. This is a very important subject. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary whether that treatment is in the nature of a continuation of the isolation treatment, or is it the use of new drugs? Sometimes leprosy is non-infective. Because of Scriptural references, most people think of leprosy as a disease with which one must never come into contact. However, there are lepers in this country now who are non-infective and there are also non-infective lepers in the Colonies. Has research been done into non-infective and infective leprosy? Are the present methods of prevention and cure by the new drugs being continued in the West Indies as they are in West Africa?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I understand that all kinds of leprosy are being examined in the West Indies at present.

Dr. Morgan: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I have a further question about research concerning the prevention of tuberculosis from the point of view of milk preservation. Are there in the West Indies any pasteurisation plants undertaking research into the early and late contamination of milk, its pasteurisation and sterilisation? What research work is being carried out into the West Indian tubercular germ? I am one of those people who believe that, to a certain extent, germs modify themselves according to the climate or environment in which they are situated. Does research work of that nature come under the

Estimate? I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Bowles, for having allowed these questions because they are very important medical questions.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I regret that I shall not be able to answer all the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) because I have not details of all the schemes which he mentions, but I will look into them and inform him of the stages which the various schemes have reached, if they have reached any.
I found, and the Committee have found, that it is more difficult to keep in Order on this Vote than it was on the other Votes on the Colonial list. The additional expenditure for which we are asking represents amounts calculated to be required to cover issues by Colonial Governments on approved schemes up to the end of the financial year, and it is very difficult to allocate the amounts required to specific schemes. I gave a list of research projects which are examples of the major research projects which have been made during the last year. Undoubtedly expenditure will be made on many of those projects but they were examples and they were not intended to be, nor were they taken to be by the Chair or anyone else, the exact projects which will be developed during this period.
That being the case, it is difficult for me to answer in detail some of the points, such as soil erosion, which have been raised. I can, however, advise hon. Members to look at the details of schemes which have actually been made up to 31st March and are published in the annual returns of schemes presented to Parliament and in the annual report of Colonial research schemes. Both of these are annual reports and both of them give in detail the schemes for which money has been required by the Colonial Office.
The matters which my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) raised are having constant attention, and the medical schemes to which he referred will be put into practice as soon as possible. However, in medicine, as in all other fields of activity, we are in great difficulty. We are short of doctors and medical research staff, and that makes progress much slower than we would


desire. Last week we had a Debate on soil erosion, and hon. Members will see from that that the question of soil erosion, which is in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, is having my right hon. Friend's constant attention and that he is giving it all the effort he can spare from his many other duties. I therefore hope that the Committee will give the Colonial Office this Vote.

Mr. Awbery: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. As the discussion has been confined to the statement made by the Under-Secretary, can we in future have the figures in print before us so that we may know exactly what we can discuss and what we cannot?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a question for me.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,950,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the development of the resources of colonies, protectorates, protected states and mandated territories, and the welfare of their peoples.

CLASS V

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BOARD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,710,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949. for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the National Assistance Board and of certain Appeal Tribunals and Pension Committees; non-contributory Old Age Pensions, including pensions to blind persons; Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions; allowances to applicants for assistance, etc.; assistance grants; the expenses of re-establishment centres, reception centres, etc.; and the expenses of maintaining certain classes of Poles in Great Britain."—[Mr. J. Griffiths.]

8.18 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The original Estimate of the National Assistance Board for this year was £61,780,000, and in the Supplementary Estimate sanction is sought for an additional £6,710,000. The original Estimate was made at the beginning of 1948 and could, in the nature of

things, only be speculative because at that time the National Assistance Bill was in its early stages, and the scale rates of assistance which Parliament was in the end to approve in June of that year could not have been foreseen when the original Estimate was made. The National Assistance Act and the new scales which were approved by the House came into operation on the 5th July, 1948.
The need for the Supplementary Estimate arises mainly, if not entirely, from the changes consequent upon the launching of the new National Assistance scheme. The new Act provided for new and more favourable methods of computing resources and made new provisions for "disregards." These represented an increased expenditure on assistance over and above the original Estimate. There are three ways in which the new Act and the new scales have led to the increase and I will explain what they are. First, the new scales, which were approved by the House and brought into operation on 5th July, provided for more generous disregards of income for those for whom the Board was responsible before the new scheme came into operation. Before 5th July the Board had responsibility for supplementing the basic pension of old age pensioners and for supplementing the benefit or providing assistance for those who were unemployed and not in receipt of unemployment benefit, The higher scales have, of course, applied to those classes of beneficiaries since 5th July.
Under the new Act, all those in receipt of public assistance—outdoor relief was the old name—were taken over by the Board, and as from 5th July, they all became entitled to the new scales, which were higher in the majority of cases than were the public assistance scales which applied before. In addition, as we expected, and as we are glad has happened, there have been additional claimants as from 5th July—people who have claimed and are now obtaining assistance from the Board who either could not, because of the old scales or their resources, claim assistance before 5th July, or who would not before have gone to the old public assistance committee.
These new claimants are important, and I will give a few brief figures to the Committee showing the increases since 5th July. On 25th June, 1948, just before


the Appointed Day for the new scheme, the Board was granting supplementary pensions and payments in the way of unemployment assistance to 543,464 persons. On 5th July the Board took over 250,000 persons who previously had been in receipt of public assistance. By 27th July, four weeks after the new scheme began, the Board were making payments to 50,000 new claimants who obviously, from our experience, were in great need before 5th July but had refused to ask for what they still regarded as poor law parish relief. The number in receipt of assistance from the Board has increased steadily since 5th July, and on 25th January the number was 1,031,000, an increase of 137,536 over and above the number the Board had as beneficiaries when the new scheme began on 5th July.
This shows that the replacement of the old poor law by the new scheme has proved itself—as we believed and were confident it would—a boon to many people in need who would not ask for public assistance. We are glad indeed that people arc coming to regard the new assistance scheme as being one that is shorn of the indignities of the poor law, and as a provision made by the nation to assist them in time of need. Since the entire amount we are asking for is accounted for, I do not propose to enter into details; they are set out clearly on pages 59 and 60 of the Vote. However, if there are any questions, I will do my best to answer them and I hope that the Committee will grant us the amount of this Supplementary Estimate.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: This Supplementary Estimate is for a large sum, and the actual deficit before deductions were made was some £8 million. Therefore, it is necessary and proper that the Minister should come to the Committee to justify his request. I think the Committee will agree that he has done so to our satisfaction. The action of the House in June last year in providing increased benefits and a higher standard of assistance, is the main cause of the increase. I have one comment to make on that. The cause for that action is the ever-increasing cost of living, which bears most hardly on the unfortunate people who go to the Assistance Board for help. It is our duty to see that that cost of living is kept down wherever possible.
In passing, and since the Minister cannot do so himself, I should like to pay a tribute to his officials, the servants of the Board, for the way in which they carry out their duties. Rarely, if ever, nowadays does one hear anything but praise for their tact and understanding in a difficult job.
The Minister was wise enough in his Financial Memorandum which accompanied the National Assistance Bill, to safeguard his position. He indicated that the cost to the Exchequer must be estimated without precision, and might well exceed the sum budgeted for. Some of his colleagues, in drawing up their Estimates, might well follow his example. I do not think there is anything further to say about this Estimate except this: the Minister took pride—and is entitled to do so—in the fact that an increasing number of people have come to seek assistance from the Assistance Board who, entitled to it, did not wish to receive assistance from the old poor law. That is right, but the figures of those needing assistance seem to be increasing rather rapidly. I trust that this is not an indication of what is going on in this country—that more and more people will have to receive assistance owing to the poverty of their position. Apart from that, I have no criticism to make, and we on this side wish the Minister well in the task which he has undertaken, so far satisfactorily.

8.27 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: I am sure every one in the Committee will wish to echo the words of the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) when he paid a tribute to the work of the Assistance Board and its officials, because the old people of the country are the first to pay testimony to the humane treatment and the friendly approach they receive from these officials. Indeed the proof of the value of the work and the spirit of these officials is to be found in the fact that the Assistance Board is now having to deal with an increasing number of applicants. If an intimidating reception were given to the old people, if they were made to feel that they were getting charity in a grudging spirit, these increased numbers would not have been before us tonight. I am sure we all welcome the fact that there is this increased number of people having aid, for what we intended when the National


Assistance Act was passed was a service which those in need could claim as a right, and which was an integral part of our social security scheme.
There are one or two points about which I am not clear, about which I am not particularly happy, and on which I should like the guidance of my right hon. Friend. I am a little puzzled by the nature and size of this Supplementary Estimate. Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that when his original estimate was introduced he was in no position to foresee the extent of the expenditure needed, because then the scale rates had not been fixed, yet when they were fixed, and the explanatory Memorandum on the draft regulations for the determination of need was before the House, an estimate was put in at that time of the cost of the increased scale rates to which we were then agreeing. That cost was in the nature of £37 million for a year.
However, that was only part of the additional expenditure which it was anticipated would arise from the new regulations because, as has been pointed out, we were not only increasing the scale rates, but were also greatly modifying the disregards, and making them much more generous. There was an un-estimated additional expenditure to be met under that head. There was also another item of expenditure which we had to foresee and which the Minister at that time said he could not estimate; that was the cost to the Board of the maintenance of old people in local authority residential homes. Under Part III of the National Assistance Act it was visualised that we should encourage local authorities to set up these homes. We all agreed it was far better that some old people should go into these residential homes, run by local authorities on lines more like hotels than institutions, where they could be cared for in privacy and comfort, instead of struggling along alone as best they could in lonely back streets and trying to make do with their cash payments.
If, therefore, we take all the expenditure which might have been foreseen over the year as a result of these items, it would come to a great deal more than the £32,640,000 appearing under Subhead "I" in the Supplementary Estimate. In

view of the fact that the new disregards have apparently brought in more claimants, and that was the only explanation my right hon. Friend gave for the additional figure, what has happened to the other items which, we might have imagined, would have pushed up the total estimate to well above the figure which is before us?
I should like a little more information from my right hon. Friend. How much of the additional sum of £7,440,000 under item "I" is in respect of the increased scale rate; how much is in respect of the additional beneficiaries—new people coming in as a result of the modification of the means test; and how much is in respect of the old people who, since the original Estimate was drawn up, have been accommodated in the local authority residential homes? I hope the Minister can say that quite a number of people have been so accommodated, for we would all agree that it is an almost impossible proposition at present for old people who live alone, as many of them do in my constituency, in back rooms, in drab streets, struggling along as best they can, to manage on the present scale rates; even on the new scale rates it is impossible for them to enjoy any comfort.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady cannot complain about the scale being too low.

Mrs. Castle: I was not doing that. I was merely trying to point out that part of this expenditure, presumably, is in respect of the old people's homes and was stressing the benefits to be obtained by old people from those homes, rather than that they should suffer the inadequacy of the scale rates. Clearly, the more inadequate the scale rates, the more urgent it is that we should increase the number of old people's homes. It is impossible for an old person to live in reasonable comfort, with prices at their present levels, on the cash payments they receive, even supplemented, as I know they are, by payments in kind, of clothing, footwear and so on. I know from experience amongst my constituents that old people cannot possibly live in anything like comfort and reasonable happiness on the amounts which it is possible at present for them to receive. This question of the old people's homes is one about which I care very much.
I should like to know therefore from my right hon. Friend whether some of the additional expenditure represents progress in the provision of these homes. The cost of maintaining an old person in a home is, of course, very much higher than the cash payments available, under even the improved scale rates. Indeed, in his scheme the Minister visualised that the minimum charge for an old person in one of these local authority hotels should be 21s. per week, and that the old person should be given 5s. a week pocket money; yet so high is the present cost of maintaining an old person in residential accommodation in reasonable comfort that a supplementary payment would be necessary from the Assistance Board to make up the difference between the 21s. which is charged and the actual cost of maintenance.
I ask my right hon. Friend, also, how much of the sum being asked represents payments in kind? How generous is the Assistance Board in the provision of gifts of clothing, footwear and so on, in helping old people to eke out their cash payments? How much of item A—"salaries, etc."—can be attributed to an extension of the service of visits to old people by Assistance Board officials? Something of a gap has been left in the lives of old people by the removal of the relieving officer, who in many cases took a very great personal interest in the people with whom he was concerned, and who visited them rather more regularly, perhaps, than has been done since. I am alarmed about the problem of the old people who live absolutely alone, in many cases in their late 70s or even 80s, trying to do their own little bit of cleaning and shopping. Some of them might die in such utter loneliness that their death is not discovered for a very long time.
I know that my right hon. Friend cares about these welfare problems and I hope he can say that provision is made for seeing that old people are visited and not left in the loneliness of terrible isolation, which their physical feebleness may force upon them under the conditions of today. I do not need to press these matters upon my right hon. Friend, who is a very humane man and cares passionately for the welfare of old people, but I hope that when he replies he will be able to report in detail on the points which I have raised.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has concentrated perhaps a little too much on the problems of the old persons in their relation to National Assistance. Provision is made not only for old people but for any person in need, and this covers a very much wider field than merely the old people, in whom we are, of course, very much interested.
In welcoming the Supplementary Estimate and the fact that we must find another £6 million for the purposes of the Board, we ought to be clear in our minds that the increase is not due, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) seemed to think, to any considerable rise in the cost of living or because a new poor class is growing up. The reason is that, in our view, the old scale rates were far too low, and we are only now putting right something which ought to have been put right long ago.
There are one or two points I should like to address to my right hon. Friend, who has given us the overall figures of the people who are affected and the extra people who have applied for assistance. Can he give us the number of pensioners in receipt of a supplementary pension who are covered by these Supplementary Estimates? What proportion of the total number of old age pensioners does that figure represent? I ask that particularly because I discovered, by a question to the Minister last week, that in my own constituency something like 1,550 old age pensioners are in receipt of supplementary pensions. That would seem to be a very high proportion of the total number of pensioners in the town. It was pleasing to know, also, that the average amount of supplementary pensions was as much as 7s. 6d. per old age pensioner. While showing that the need exists, these figures give an indication that by means of supplementary pensions people can considerably increase their old age pensions if they are able to fulfil the more generous requirements which are now in force.
The other matter which I wanted to raise relates to Subhead I, which covers the provision of reception centres and so forth. I have visited a number of Assistance Board offices. While they


are working at great pressure—in the early days of the scheme the officers did not know where to turn—many of the premises are drab and uninteresting and likely to deter people from visiting them to seek assistance. Have efforts been made during the past year to improve accommodation and make it more bright and cheerful and take away the wooden benches and provide a more attractive kind of accommodation?
I wish to add my tribute to the staff and to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Assistance Board, who are doing a great work. I pay tribute to the devotion to duty of the officials who, whenever I have had cause to write to them, have replied almost by return of post, although it may have involved a special visit to the person concerned in order to check up the facts. The Estimate covers widows who are in want and people who, because their husbands have not paid insurance contributions, have not been able to benefit, and another class which gives a lot of anxiety, those dependent people, such as imbeciles, who formerly were counted in the family, but can now stand on their own for purposes of grant. Will my right hon. Friend say how many of those are in the scheme?
It seems to me that the old stigma of the poor law has been finally removed and we ought now to ask all our people who are in need, to co-operate with the Minister and the Assistance Board so that they will be helped as of right.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman presented his Supplementary Estimate so modestly that I feel we ought to congratulate him on his administration. The additional amounts required for the remuneration of the officers of the Board are, I am sure, properly incurred. The amount of time and patience which individual officers of the Assistance Board give to ascertaining the facts in specific cases is amazing. In my constituency there was a very elderly gentleman who was entirely deaf and dumb. We conducted our conversation by printing on a slate. I was satisfied that he was entitled to additional benefit. The officers of the Assistance Board attended and, I believe, spent several hours with that man, and his needs were properly ascertained. I

think it is right for the Minister to be told of the good work done by his officers, which would not otherwise come to his notice.
The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred to Subhead I and expressed some regret that the item was of an omnibus character, adding together the assistance grants and provision for re-establishment centres. It would be interesting if those items could be split into actual cash payments made for relief of need and also if the Committee were given some indication of the amount of money made available for re-housing of the elderly and others. Perhaps the Minister may venture a forecast of the future in regard to these matters. I commend him upon his work and upon the presentation of the Supplementary Estimate.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Tolley: As one who was associated for many years with the old poor law organisation, I wish to say how much I welcome the Supplementary Estimate. I am gratified to feel that the whole Committee is congratulating the Minister on this Supplementary Estimate. It is rather an unusual thing for all sides of the Committee to agree on a large sum of money supplementary to the Estimate already presented, but we do so because we all realise the great benefits which are accruing. I agree with the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) as to the qualifications and human values associated with all who are called upon to operate the scheme. I have had personal contact with some of them, and I pay my tribute to them and express appreciation of the sympathetic understanding which they have and the manner in which they carry out their duties. The Estimate is for a fairly large sum, but I am satisfied that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee exactly how the Estimate for £270,000 for salaries is made up.
Enough has been said already about supplementary pensions to indicate their real value. I ask my right hon. Friend to analyse how the total under Subhead I is made up. I view with some concern the slow progress which is being made. I do not attach blame to the Minister or to any particular person, but I am not altogether happy that we are making sufficient progress in finding


accommodation for our old people who some months ago had cause to believe it would be at their disposal. There are still hundreds of thousands of old people who are enjoying only the conditions they had before the passing of the Act. There are still old couples who are parted from each other because of lack of accommodation which would give them the comfort and pleasure all of us would wish them to have. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what is represented by the items:
Old Age Pensions (Non-Contributory) £840,000,
and
Maintenance of Certain Classes of Poles in Great Britain, £550.
I look forward to the time when another Supplementary Estimate will be asked for in order to help to give human happiness to old people who have borne the heat and burden of the day.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I do not want the Minister to think that there is any desire to encourage people to go into institutions, but I want to see the larger institutions broken up into hostels and homes. I do not think it is at all desirable to make conditions such that the homes will be more attractive than those in which people were able to live with their families, or separately. I wish to tell the Minister that in spite of the very desirable advance that we have made it is still not enough. Our old people are still contending that what they are getting in supplementation, although it has been considerably improved, is still not enough. They are pressing for more.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already ruled, and I think I am right, that no hon. Member can ask for more, in other words to spend more.

Mr. Keenan: I am not asking for more; I am saying that what we have done is unfortunately not enough. What I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister is the very important matter of administration in the difficulties that exist today. We have undertaken what was normally the task of the P.A.C. As one who has had some considerable experience of that, I say that we centralise our activities in the Assistance Board. The Assistance Board in Liverpool, like most other places, has not been extended, and most of the old and infirm people

have to come a considerable distance. I know the difficulty of finding accommodation, and in this Supplementary Estimate there is some expenditure in connection with that, but I suggest it is not enough. I ask the Minister to look at what has been done. It may be very good, but certainly there is much more to be done. We need additional offices. In spite of the magnificent things that have been done, that additional factor has yet to be provided.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I join with other hon. Members in paying a tribute to the Minister and the officials of the Assistance Board. We were interested to hear the Minister say that 50,000 applicants to the Assistance Board—who presumably are qualified to apply for relief—have, because of the provisions of National Assistance and the abolition of the stigma of poor law, applied for the first time. I think that the very great reform of allowing people to draw from the Post Office, with all the respectability that that entails, was perhaps the greatest reform of all.
I wish to refer to a rather narrow point under Subhead A, where the increase in the payment of salaries to officials of the Board is listed and the explanation is given that this is largely because of overtime and extra duties, etc., of the staffs of the Assistance Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) referred to the disadvantages of centralisation which have become apparent in the large industrial areas. I would endorse that, and I know the Minister is aware of it. I hope he will be able to say that steps are to be taken to decentralise as far as possible and as soon as the technical difficulties can be overcome. The present position in the City of Manchester is that in half of the City, on the south side, there is an area extending eight miles from the point where people have to apply for assistance. That is a very long way and imposes a severe hardship on many people when they have to apply for relief.
In addition, it is very difficult for the staffs of the Assistance Board and one of the reasons why they have to put in so much overtime. I have been to the office of the Assistance Board dealing with the South Manchester area. It is quite unsuitable, both for the staff and for the


people who go there. The result is that the applicants, who include old people and invalids, have to wait a long time. The atmosphere is not conducive to producing that new spirit which the Minister and hon. Members on this side of the Committee wish to see established at the earliest possible moment. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the matter is receiving the closest attention and that in time these disabilities will be removed.
Another point I wish to raise is in regard to the amount of the supplementary assistance. I refer particularly to the amount given to those people who are given medical priorities. I repeatedly come across the type of case where a doctor certifies that certain milk and eggs—as in the example I have here—shall be allowed to the wife of an old age pensioner. In a week that costs 6s. 7d., in this particular case. The grant of the Assistance Board towards that is 5s. I wish to ask whether it is possible—and I understand that the Board has great powers and is very flexible—when a relatively small amount for extra nourishment is mentioned the local officer can have power to grant the full amount? It seems a small point, but when one is dealing with a man and wife whose total income is £2 12s. 6d. a week, 1s. 7d. becomes a matter of considerable importance.

8.58 p.m.

Dr. Stross: I, too, would like to refer to Subhead A, but before doing so, although this may be piling Pelion on Ossa, I should like to join in the tributes which have been paid to the Minister and his officials and staff in the working of this very great scheme. In Subhead A reference is made to salaries, where £270,000 additional money is asked for and the words are
… mainly for overtime and extra duty payments to staff …
Is the Minister satisfied that all this overtime has been essential, or has he any suspicion that some of his staff, particularly those in the more lowly-paid ranks, welcome overtime and go out of their way to seek it because their scale of remuneration is rather low? The information coming to me, certainly in the area where I live and represent the people, is that the scales are low. I am sure that

the Minister must have had representations made to him, and if he has I hope that he will give us his views on this matter.
May I also say that I appreciate that we cannot immediately build up suitable structures for the reception of the people; nor can we adequately house our staffs. They are often in overcrowded rooms with inadequate ventilation. They grumble very little indeed, but when and if they do I hope that their low, patient voice is very easily heard by the Minister.

Mr. Tom Brown: I wish to answer the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross). It ought not to go forth from this House that National Assistance officers are working overtime in order to increase their weekly salaries. Such is not the case. I find the National Assistance officers are only too willing to stop at the appointed time, but it is out of their great sympathy and wish to assist the old people that they go on. I have never found any officer who does overtime because his salary is so low.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I begin by expressing for myself, for the Chairman and members of the Board and for every member of the Board's staff our gratitude for the very warm-hearted tributes which have been paid here tonight. On 5th July we made a very big change which involved the transfer of responsibility for making decisions from several hundred local authorities to the National Assistance Board. There were many people who were deeply concerned that this essentially local service—a parish, a guardian and then a county service—had become the responsibility of the Board, and they feared that the result would be a form of bureaucratic body. It was gratifying to me that everybody paid warm-hearted tribute to the spirit in which the staff of the Department approached their work. From the beginning it was our desire to be helpful. I said to everyone concerned, "Remember that the people who come to us are people in trouble. They need money, and they need it quickly. Our administration will depend for its success upon that money being paid quickly. More than anything else, everyone who gets assistance must leave with his dignity completely unimpaired." I am grateful


for the very fine tributes which have been paid to the members of the staff of the Assistance Board. I shall have pleasure in passing them on to the Chairman and members of the Board and, through them, to the staff.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) asked about details of this Supplementary Estimate and referred to what appeared on the surface to be a contradiction with the estimate in a Memorandum published when the Bill and the scales first came forward. The original Estimate was only a rough one. We could not possibly estimate accurately the increased expenditure due to the new scales. We estimated that the new scales would cost £9 million a year, and this £7,750,000 is actually the proportionate cost of the new scales for the part of the year they have been in operation.
The hon. Lady and several others asked about old people's homes. I am sorry that I cannot reply in detail because this is not strictly my responsibility nor indeed is it the responsibility of the Assistance Board. Under the Act local authorities were empowered—indeed it was made an obligation upon them—to make provision for homes for old people. Where old people enter into homes of this kind a charge of 21s. a week is made, but leaving them with at least 5s. a week for themselves. Suppose an old man and his wife enter one of these homes who get 42s. pension. They will be independent; they pay the 21s. a week and the Board adds in these cases a supplementary payment of 10s. so that they can have 5s. each.
I will convey to my colleague, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and through him to the local authorities, the views expressed. It is our desire to press forward as quickly as possible with the provision of homes for old people. A good deal is already being done by the local authorities. This is a service which will develop as opportunity occurs. Let no one be under any misapprehension about the very great difficulties of securing premises for this and other purposes in these days. From my own experience with the authorities I know best in South Wales and elsewhere, having regard to the difficulty of obtaining premises, I think the local authorities are responding magnificently.
We all appreciate that, but we urge them to get on more quickly with the job.
I am afraid that I have not got the separate items into which the £7 million is broken up. If I were to single out any one part of the Act which has brought joy and gratitude to many homes, it is the provision by which, if there is in a home a poor unfortunate child stricken either physically or mentally, or both, he is now entitled to receive assistance in his own right irrespective of what the income of the father or mother, or both, may be. We have had tributes to this new part of this new service. If it is only for that alone, I think that the Act is worth while. I am sorry that I cannot give the detailed figures. One day I shall do my best to give them. Neither can I at this moment say anything about the amount of assistance in kind. If my hon. Friend will agree, I will endeavour to make details available later.
Another point of interest raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn concerns visits to old people. When the new pension rates became payable in October, 1946, I realised that one effect would be that somewhere around one million people who hitherto had been receiving assistance from the Board would cease to be entitled to it because the new basic pension would put their income above the scale rate. We were anxious that we should not lose complete touch with these old people. Therefore, we wrote to each one of them telling them that as from 4th October, 1946, they would receive the new basic pension and adding "You will cease, therefore, to receive assistance and if there is anything we can do to help in any way we leave a postcard with you and if you post it a visit will be made."
One of the changes in our social life generally which has created a big problem in these days concerns the number of old and lonely people. As one who was brought up in the old Nonconformist tradition, let me say that visiting them was one of the functions which the minister or the parson fulfilled. But in these days, when church and chapel going is becoming less and less popular, there are large numbers of people who have no contacts of that kind. This is one of the services to which the Board is giving a lot of attention.
I make an appeal. There are lots of men and women with time on their hands who perhaps are seeking ways in which they can be of service. Here is a real service which they could render. If they can give a couple of hours in an afternoon in order to visit some old gentleman or lady, or perhaps two, and talk to them they will be helping. The Board is doing its best. We are in constant touch with the National Council of Social Service and the old people's welfare associations. The Board is represented on their committees and we hope to continue an increasingly effective service to remove what is now one of the biggest problems in this field—the terrible loneliness of old people. I give an assurance that that problem will be dealt with as effectively as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked whether I could give him the number of supplementary payments to pensioners. The number at the latest date for which figures are available is 550,000 which probably represents a total of 650,000 pensioners. Where there are a man and woman both of whom are pensioners, the application for assistance generally speaking will be made on behalf of the wife by the husband, so that when we pay assistance in 550,000 pensioners' cases it is in respect of a total number of 650,000. The hon. Gentleman asked what percentage that was of the total. At the moment 3,750,000 people are receiving the new rate of retirement pension. Then there are nearly 500,000 receiving the noncontributory pension, and about 500,000 basic pensioners still at work, so that there are about 4,750,000 pensioners altogether; 650,000 of them are receiving supplementary payments.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the Board's offices, and let me say at once that I appreciate very much indeed the fact that some of the offices are far from being what we would desire them to be. The Board has done a very great deal in the last 18 months, and I myself, as Minister, had to find 1,000 offices with which to start our new National Insurance Scheme. As the Committee knows, only about 10 of these are new, so that we had to find existing premises and adapt them to the use of the Board and the Ministry. The Board has 300 area offices from

which assistance payments are made, and they have made arrangements with my Ministry and with the Ministry of Labour by which they have the use of about 800 places at which officers of the Board attend.
We appreciate that the Board's own officers are far from being what we should like them to be, and we are doing our best to improve that situation. We think it is important that the offices to which people come should be as bright and attractive as we can make them, and we shall do our best to assist the Board in any direction we can. My hon. Friend also asked me the number of persons in the other classes in receipt of payment, but I have not got the figures with me now. I will obtain them for him as quickly as possible.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) for the tribute which he paid to the members of the staff of the Assistance Board. On the question of the salaries of the members of the Board, the additional sum that is asked for is £270,000, and this is mainly due to overtime. It must be appreciated that, round about 5th July, the Board had an enormous job to do. First of all, they had their own supplementary pensioners and those receiving unemployment allowances, and they had to apply to them the new scales and compute their assistance afresh; and there were new "disregards" which had to be taken into account when assessing their entitlements. They had to take over 250,000 persons in receipt of public assistance and had to do their best to ensure that there was no break in the continuity of their payments. Finally, in the first month, there were 50,000 extra claimants who had been repelled by the old poor law but who now came forward for assistance. Overtime had to be worked, and although there has been an increase in the staff, there has still been the need for additional time.
Perhaps some idea of the work done in these offices may be gathered from the fact that one of the problems is the number of people who call personally. I sometimes wish that there were fewer people who called at the offices, because more people have to be taken away from the job of administration to attend to them. The number of callers increased from 43,000 to 90,000 a week after the start of the new scheme, and that is one


of the reasons for the pressure of overtime work. I think the members of the staff have done a very good job, having regard to the tremendous difficulties which they had to face, but they are being overworked and doing far too much overtime; the same applies in the Ministry of National Insurance. We are doing our very best to improve administration so as to reduce the overtime, but let me say that a good deal of the trouble is due to the inadequate and unsuitable premises in which the staff has to work. To the extent to which we are able to improve the accommodation, I am sure that we shall be able to reduce the overtime.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) will not expect me to refer to the scales of salaries, which are settled for the service as a whole. The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) raised the question of the welfare of old people, to which I have already replied, and I may add that the problem of accommodation in his city is one of the difficulties with which we are faced. He reminded us that in the cities like Liverpool, Swansea and Plymouth, the problem of accommodation is very acute because so much of it was destroyed; we are doing our best to obtain new offices and to make improvements in the ones which we have already.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. W. Griffiths) for referring to one tangible symbol of the success of the scheme in the use of the Post Office for payments. I should like to take this opportunity, both as Minister responsible for the Assistance Board and as Minister of National Insurance, of expressing my profound gratitude to Post Office staffs who very often do not get the credit which they ought, and I am sure that hon. Members will join with me. What would we do in our national life, particularly in this field, without the Post Office and their staff? I therefore wish to pay my warm tribute to those people. Perhaps I might be allowed to recall that there were many discussions on this question when the relevant Bills were going through their various stages, and I then said that this method of payment through the Post Office was the most dignified; in fact, 98 per cent. of the people have chosen to be paid in this manner. In this respect I agree that we must decentralise.
The question of individual needs is one of great importance in the assistance scheme. We lay down scales which cover the broad needs, but over and above those there are cases of individual needs. This is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the staff of the Board. I hope hon. Members appreciate that there is provision for appeal. If the officer refuses to give a discretionary allowance or refuses to give what the claimant thinks is adequate, there is an appeal to a local appeal board. At the same time, I know it is the desire of the members of the Board, as indeed it is the desire of the Government and of this Committee, that in this field in which there are so many varying individual needs each member of the staff should be given the largest possible discretion when dealing with these cases.
A question was asked about the savings under non-contributory pensions. In their original estimate the Board overestimated the number of people who would claim non-contributory pensions during this year. Under the new scheme, the administration of non-contributory pensions has been transferred from Customs and Excise to the Board. The Board over-estimated; the amount saved is the result of the over-estimate and is not a saving on the pensioners themselves. I have tried to cover most of the points, and I hope that the Committee will now approve this Estimate.

Mr. Tolley: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the question of Poles?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry I did not deal with it before. We had to make an estimate of the number of Poles who required assistance. I am sure hon. Members will be very glad to know that the reason why there is a saving on this item is that the number of Poles who are finding work and who, therefore, do not need assistance is greater than the number which we estimated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,710,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the National Assistance Board and of certain Appeal Tribunals and Pension Committees; non-contributory Old Age pensions, including pensions


to blind persons; Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions; allowances to applicants for assistance, &amp;c.; assistance grants; the expenses of re-establishment centres, reception centres, &amp;c.; and the expenses of maintaining certain classes of Poles in Great Britain.

CLASS 1

HOUSE OF COMMONS

9.19 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £41,955, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid of the Kitchen Committee.
I have no desire to burke discussion, but it occurred to me that possibly some other Members of the Committee might like to open the Debate so that I could then speak once and reply to what had been said. However, if it is the desire of the Committee that I should make some preliminary observations on this Vote, I will gladly do so.
I think that the main item to which attention should be directed is the provision of £28,250 as a grant to the Kitchen Committee. As the Committee may be aware, this is in respect of two years and not only in respect of the year 1948–49. Those who have seen the Report issued by the Kitchen Committee will be aware that that Committee has for some years now been very much exercised by the knowledge that, in spite of all its endeavours, and in spite of the fact that it has repeatedly raised the price of food and other services, it has, nevertheless, month by month, or rather taking the year as a whole, sustained a fairly substantial loss. On 5th November last, in reply to a Written Question, I indicated that the Government had come to the conclusion that it was reasonable that a contribution should be made from public funds. The Kitchen Committee's report points out that there are a number of considerations which have led, and must inevitably lead—

Captain Crookshank: On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman has been referring to this report, may I ask whether it will be within the scope of this Debate or not?

I should have thought it was quite separate. We may as well know whether we are to discuss it or not.

The Chairman: I assume it is in the Vote Office. I do not know. If it is, I see no objection to the right hon. Gentleman referring to it.

Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order. This is not the fundamental Estimate. This is a revised Estimate. Surely, therefore, we cannot refer to the report?

Mr. Tolley: There is no original Estimate before the Committee, is there?

The Chairman: If there is matter in the report affecting the Estimate, I assume it may be referred to

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Further to the point of Order I understand that the report to which my noble Friend referred is a report which refers solely to the future practice of the Kitchen Committee, and makes certain recommendations, and that no part of it refers to this Estimate, which deals solely with past expenditure.

Mr. Haydn Davies: May I, as a member of the Kitchen Committee and, therefore, one who has signed this report, point out that the report is an explanation of what the Supplementary Estimate is for?

The Chairman: I can only say that if and in so far as the report in question refers to the matters which are the substance of this Supplementary Estimate, it may be referred to, but not otherwise. Quite clearly, we cannot enter into a discussion of a report that deals with matters which have no relation to the Supplementary Estimate before the Committee.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can say quite easily what I desire to say without making any further reference to the fact that this report has been issued. It is, I think, within the recollection of all Members of the Committee that there has been a deficit, not only in the year just closed, from January to December, 1948, but also in the previous year. There are in the Palace of Westminster a number of different places where Members, the staff, and strangers who visit us, can obtain refreshment. We have to take into account the fact that the servicing


of those various centres for refreshment is an expensive and uneconomical thing. It means extra staff to carry and to wait, and additional kitchen space. An ex-Member of this House, known to many of us, who afterwards became Lord Mayor of London, and who was not unknown in the catering and hotel world, in giving evidence before the Committee on Accommodation in January, 1945, committed himself to this assertion:
I have never known an establishment where waste is so prevalent from a catering point of view as the Palace of Westminster.
He was definitely stating that, as a caterer, he realised how difficult it would be to provide refreshments in the places where this kind of service is essential, without making a loss.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question? Old Members like myself who remember the situation in the old days realise that these so-called facilities for refreshments have been enormously increased in recent years. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would devote himself to telling us why they have been so increased. There are now far more places where one can obtain refreshments than there were 10 years ago.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That may be so. I think that the reason is well known to all Members of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. If I may, I will make my speech in my own way and not as the noble Lord desires me to make it. If I have time and if I feel so inclined, I will presently address myself to the point which the noble Lord has just raised.
It is, I think, within the recollection of all Members of the Committee that the House does not meet for the whole of the 12 months in any year, Last year, I think the House did not meet for 17½; weeks. When it did meet, it met for only 3½; days a week so far as the catering arrangements were concerned. The House decided at the beginning of this Parliament—and decided, in my view, very properly—to pay the staff all the year round. Previously, when the House was up, and certainly during the Recesses, the staff were paid off and no one cared what they did or how they lived. The House in its wisdom in 1945, soon after this Parliament assembled, decided that the staff should be put on a permanent

basis and that we should also arrange for some pension scheme for them.
I am told by those who know—I do not myself know a great deal about these things—that the prices charged in the various cafés and refreshment rooms of this House are as high as they ought to be. In fact some Members would say, and some visitors would tell us, that they are higher than they ought to be. We have to remember that the Members themselves form only a minority of those for whom we have to cater. The Press, I am sorry to say, frequently assure the public that any subvention that has to be made to the Kitchen Committee is designed to help Members of Parliament and that the taxpayer is having to find money so that Members of Parliament may have cheap meals. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are at the most 640 Members of this House, whereas the numbers who have to be catered for are 1,758. There are the members of the staff here, the officials, the members of the Press Gallery and, in addition to the 1,758 who are, if one may so describe them, people who are here constantly, there are the general public who come and go and for whom refreshments of some kind have to be provided. Therefore we have to treat this matter in a reasonable way.
It may well be that some Members would say that we ought not to provide these amenities for Members, or the staff or the public. That is a reasonable point of view, but I do not think that the House would carry on for very long if that view were accepted. Around the Palace of Westminster there are few places where food can be got for so large a number. Moreover, it must be remembered that this House frequently sits into the night and sometimes throughout the night. It would be quite impossible for Members, to say nothing of those who attend Members, to get fed unless something were provided for them. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will see that this is an obligation which we cannot avoid, and that the Kitchen Committee has done what it could.
I would add that, in the weeks when the House is sitting, an actual profit is made by the Kitchen Committee on the food which it supplies. What makes the deficit is the fact that we have at least 17 weeks in the year when the House does not sit, but when the overheads go


on. Therefore, I hope the Committee will see the reasonableness of this revised Estimate, and agree to it without a Division.
I do not know whether the House desires me to refer to the other items in this revised Estimate. Those of us who were in the House when the former Clerk of the Hosue said goodbye, will remember that it was then decided that assistance should be given to him for his journey overseas; provision is made here for that. Further, the expenses of binding and obtaining new books in the Library have been greater than was at first thought, and there is an additional sum required under that head. Then the House decided to present a Mace and Speaker's Chair and to send a delegation to the new sister Dominion of Ceylon. That also means a Supplementary Estimate, which is provided for under this Vote.

9.32 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I certainly do not want to comment in any way on the last three points raised by the Supplementary Estimate, which I think are agreeable to everybody, but my hon. Friends would like me to say one word on the first item—the proposed grant to the Kitchen Committee. I listened very attentively to the right hon. Gentleman to hear what justification he could produce for this, but I found it very difficult, because he seemed to me to base his case largely on what are inherent and permanent factors in the situation. He said that the House did not sit all the year round and that in each week it only sat three and a half days. At least he mentioned three and a half days, but I imagine he meant four and a half days.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I meant three and a half days. Members gather on a Monday and not a very large number of them are here for lunch. It is only later in the afternoon that the House begins to fill up. Taking it by and large, we can say that it is only three and a half days, although I would not quarrel if the right hon. Gentleman calls it four and a half.

Captain Crookshank: I did not, but the Report did. I thought the right hon. Gentleman had merely misread the Report, to which he had already alluded,

because that says four and a half days. Those are permanent factors in the situation. I am surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that as many as between 1,700 and 1,800 persons are entitled to have meals in the House, as is my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). It is indeed a startling fact, but that does not make it any more a reason why we should saddle this expenditure upon the taxpayers.
The whole point about a Supplementary Estimate and why it is introduced at all is that from the time when the original Estimates were made, certain factors had subsequently supervened, or could not have been foreseen at all, and, therefore, could not be assessed. None of that applies to this case, because there was no suggestion at the time when the main Estimates were introduced of any grant being made at all. This is a new service, and such factors as the long Recesses, superannuation and wages for staff were as well known to the Government a year ago when the Estimates were prepared as they are now. So here is a definite case where it lay within the province of the Government literally to cut its coat according to the amount of cloth available. They knew exactly where they stood in this matter. In spite of that, they have adopted this new policy of asking, through us, the taxpayers of the country to give a subvention to the meals provided in this House.
I find that policy extremely hard to justify. I cannot see why the matter cannot be put upon a proper basis. If the answer is that to do so will make the meals too expensive, I must say that that is a dilemma in which any catering establishment might find itself: either increase the charges or reduce the facilities. The ordinary common or garden catering establishment cannot fall back upon the taxpayers and say that the taxpayers of the country will make up any deficit. Either the establishment makes up the deficit itself, or it goes bankrupt and that is the end of it. I think this is a deplorable suggestion.
I want to put this thought into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman: if he likes to break up this figure of £28,250—I am not being correct down to the last penny—he will find that in fact it comes to just about the cost of dinner every night for every Member of the House while the House is sitting. It


represents somewhere about 5s. per day per Member during the period of the Session. I do not think that we are entitled to ask the taxpayers of this country to provide us with that meal.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Haydn Davies: As a very humble member of the Kitchen Committee I should like to say a word in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). Perhaps I might first give him the figures of the 1,700 people entitled to use the rooms of the Kitchen Committee. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is listening I can give him the actual figures. These are the people entitled to use the Refreshment Department Rooms: Members of Parliament, 640; Press and Official Reporters, 200; Members' Secretaries, 346; permanent employees, 120; staff canteen, uniformed staff, tickets issued, 312; and the catering staff, 146, making a total of 1,758.

Captain Crookshank: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and I apologise to the Committee if my attention was distracted. When the hon. Gentleman says that 1,758 is the number of persons entitled, I would merely like to know entitled by whom?

Mr. Haydn Davies: By the Serjeant at Arms. The Kitchen Committee can only grant permission to use the Refreshment Rooms to people on the list supplied by the Serjeant at Arms.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member cited "Members' Secretaries." They are quite unofficial persons. Can the hon. Member tell us why Members' Secretaries are entitled to have canteen facilities here?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Haydn Davies: Members' Secretaries are given a ticket of admission to the cafeteria and it entitles them to the kind of meal that hon. Members cannot have there, because they are not allowed to have that kind of ticket.
I would take up the last point by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough about the expense to the taxpayer. That is the biggest travesty of this Estimate that has ever been made. From the figures I have given, it will be seen

that only one-third of those entitled to use the premises are Members of Parliament. The second point is that our prices are far too high. I think that Members of Parliament are paying more for their meals than anybody outside pays in a comparable place. We have found, as a Kitchen Committee, that as prices have gone up, our takings have gone down. We are now faced with this Supplementary Estimate and, as the Financial Secretary has indicated, the amount asked for is modest in view of what may he required next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite must face up to the fact that if they went a service provided, the Kitchen Committee will do it within reasonable limits, but when the House of Commons rises for a Recess, the telephone department, the messengers, the custodians and the Library carry on—all the functions of the House go on except the Kitchen Committee. We are therefore faced with the fact that the wages of the staff, agreed upon by the House, amounting to £18,900 in advance, have to be paid before we begin making a penny profit. It is therefore impossible for the Kitchen Committee to run any of their services at a profit at all. I have been looking at the figures over the last 100 years. Apart from three or four occasions, the Kitchen Committee have always received a subvention from the Treasury.

Dr. Morgan: The Tories never objected.

Mr. Haydn Davies: The figures are available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) says, no one on the other side of the House ever objected when those subventions were made when a Conservative hon. Member was Chairman of the Kitchen Committee.

Earl Winterton: That is not true. Constant objections have been made to the cost. This is not a party matter at all.

Mr. Haydn Davies: The noble Lord's memory is obviously longer than mine in connection with this House, but I have been going through the minutes of the Kitchen Committee along with the Chairman, and it is news to us that there were objections in the past to the subvention from the Treasury to the Kitchen Committee. In those days the staff were


paid by the hours they worked. They were not paid for week-ends and they were thrown away during the Recesses. At the moment we pay the staff seven days a week for 52 weeks of the year. In addition we pay them a pension, which is a big drain on the Kitchen Committee.

Mr. Osborne: Out of the American subvention.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Haydn Davies: If the hon. Member wants to bring the American loan into this Debate, Major Milner, it is then for you to decide whether it is in Order or not. However, the fact remains that in the old days the staff of the Kitchen Committee—and of the House—were paid by the hours they worked, and when they did not work here, they had to go off and find employment elsewhere. The House of Commons agreed with the Kitchen Committee in their decision to pay these men and women a living wage and to give them a pension, and the House must know that that means, before we begin the year, a loss of £18,900 which we have to pay the staff while the House is not in Session.
If the House wants to go back to the bad old days, the Kitchen Committee will have to do so, but if they still want to go on, they must grant us this Supplementary Estimate, which covers two years, not one. I hope that hon. Members have all read the supplementary report, because that will raise much bigger issues in the future. On behalf of the Kitchen Committee, I can say that we have gone into this and done everything in our power to try to make it work. It is an all-party Committee and there is general unanimity on it. On this Supplementary Estimate, I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that not one Member of his party on the Kitchen Committee objected to the request when we made it; it was unanimous. Now we find a strange thing, that he is objecting to a Supplementary Estimate to which his party on the Committee agreed. I support the Supplementary Estimate.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I think the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) was a little unfortunate in introducing

party bias into this House of Commons matter. If I recollect aright, everybody in the House was in perfect agreement that the staff—to whom we are under a considerable debt and to whom we are much obliged for the way they look after us—should have proper remuneration. I was interested in his break-up of the numbers of people who are entitled to meals, to each of which we are now asking the taxpayer to make some contribution. First, he dealt with the 640 Members of Parliament.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we might as well get this straight. We are not asking the taxpayer to pay a contribution to anyone's meal; we are asking the taxpayer—it is quite plain—to bear a proportion of the salaries of the staff during the weeks when the House is not sitting. I should know, because I dealt with this Estimate in the Treasury. We are not paying the full deficit. We are paying only a subvention in respect of those weeks when the House is not sitting, and it is only during those weeks that any loss occurs.

Mr. Butcher: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but he is not usually given to splitting hairs. What he fails to realise is that there are between 1,700 and 1,800 people entitled to have meals in this place, and if the prices for those meals were higher, he would not be applying for a Supplementary Estimate tonight. Now let us come to the numbers.

Mr. Benn Levy: Mr. Benn Levy (Eton and Slough) rose—

Mr. Butcher: I cannot give way again. There are 640 Members of Parliament, every one of whom has received an increase in salary from £600 to £1,000 a year during the lifetime of this Parliament. At the time when hon. Members were giving their services entirely free and the accounts of the Kitchen Committee did not balance, there was no real hardship in asking the taxpayer for a subvention.
Now we come to the 200 Pressmen. Is it really right, on whatever grounds the right hon. Gentleman asks us, that we should be asking the taxpayer to make a contribution so that the expense accounts of the newspaper representative, whom we are glad to see amongst us, should be lighter than they would be if


they had to pay their proper share of the upkeep and overhead charges of the Kitchen Committee?
Then we come to the 340 Members' secretaries. Why should any subvention be made towards discharging their expenses in this matter? Then, of course, there is the question of catering for the permanent employees of the House. That is rather a different principle, because the principle which applies in normal works canteens is involved. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation I was deeply concerned to think that out of the number of people for whom provision in terms of food is made in this House, 640 Members of Parliament have enjoyed increased salaries, and 200 Press men should not be the particular care of the Financial Secretary when he is presenting Supplementary Estimates, nor indeed should Members' secretaries—their remuneration should be such that there is no obligation to pay towards their meals.
Let us face up to the fact that 1,100—I think my arithmetic is right—of these people ought to be carrying their full share of these overhead expenses. I believe that it can and ought to be arranged. I do not think that it is right to say that the prices charged for food in this place are as high as prices in comparable places outside. [Interruption.] It is a matter of opinion. Everybody is entitled to his opinion. I believe that at a time when Members of Parliament are receiving an increased salary, when economy in national affairs is of paramount importance, the Kitchen Committee should be urged to adjust its accounts so that this subvention would not be necessary. I hope that the Supplementary Estimate will be taken to a Division.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: As Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, let me say at the outset that this is not a new question. I have here the figures for a period of 56 years ending with the present year. On only nine occasions during the whole of those 56 years did the Kitchen Committee make a profit. In the other 47 years it made a loss. During my 22 years in this House, I have never heard any Member on any side raise objections to the subventions which came from the Treasury to the Kitchen Committee.
I have also a letter addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1936. I should like to read all of it, but time will not permit. It referred to a special report which pointed to the need for a renewal of the annual subvention, and suggested that the cost of the necessary staff and equipment should be defrayed by the Treasury, as in other Departments of the House. Did any hon. Member ever hear any objection raised to those who serve the House in the Library? Is it any less necessary that Members in the House should be fed than that they should have books?

Mr. Osborne: They can get food outside.

Mr. McEntee: Is it any less necessary that they should be fed than they should be handed a slip of paper by a messenger to tell them that somebody is waiting for them outside; or is it any less necessary than that they should be reported—and very well reported—by the Official Reporters in the Gallery? I make no apology for the Kitchen Committee or its work. In 1936 the Chairman of the Committee reported to the House:
I am asked to press for early consideration of this request and to point out that if the Treasury prefer to grant a subvention rather than to defray the cost of the staff and equipment an annual sum of not less than £5,000 will be necessary.
The following year, in 1937, in the time not of a Labour Government but of a Conservative Government, the report of the Kitchen Committee asked that tipping should be abolished. That alone, it was said, would cost £3,000. The report went on:
Your Committee, therefore, are of opinion that the time has now come either for the restoration of an annual subvention on a sufficient scale to cover their present difficulties or for the Treasury to defray the cost of staff and equipment, as in other Departments of the House.
In 1938, again, there was a Conservative Government with a majority of Conservatives on the Committee and a memorandum, signed by 289 Members of the House of Commons, in agreement with the principle that waiters and other servants employed in the House should be guaranteed a regular and reasonable wage and that tipping should be abolished, was considered. The Committee resolved:


That the Committee agree with the principle, but at present the receipts are not sufficient to enable us to carry it out.
The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made a fine speech, to which I would like him to refer again. On 12th December, 1944, he said:
I think it is most important that it should go out from this House that we are not in the least ashamed of the fact that we are anxious to make this House a place where visitors from Allied countries, the Dominions and all over the world can be properly entertained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 1180–1.]
He also spoke of the staff, but I have not the time to read it.

Earl Winterton: I might have slightly altered my opinion if, at that time, I had read the Lynskey Tribunal's report.

Mr. McEntee: If I heard aright, the noble Lord has altered his opinion, which was right in those days and is no less right today.
At the beginning of this Parliament the question was again raised in the House and I paid tribute to the speech which the noble Lord made at that time and to many other Members for their desire to see that the staff were properly dealt with and properly paid. A report was made to the House by the Kitchen Committee in which it was proposed that substantial reductions should be made in charges for meals in the Members' dining rooms, and for Members only in the strangers' dining room, and that a House lunch should be provided at a cheap price; that payment of gratuities be abolished in all departments under the control of the Kitchen Committee and that a notice to that effect be circulated; and that, subject to the consent of Mr. Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms, notices be posted in the rooms that a revised scale of charges be operated.
All that was carried out by this House, and every hon. Member in this House agreed to it. What did it cost? It cost £6,400 to abolish tipping. It cost the Committee £11,000—it was reported in 1946 and every hon. Member knows it, it is in the report issued by the Kitchen Committee in 1946—to pay the staff all the year round and not one solitary Member protested. I should have been very sorry indeed if there had been one protest. Members of this House and those who get their meals here had lived

on the staff sufficiently long—[Interruption.]—when we put into effect those conditions which all hon. Members approved, and now that the opportunity comes to back up that decision, we get this opposition. We were also asked to put our staff on the superannuation fund. We did so, and it cost £3,500 to do it. That means £11,000, plus £6,400, plus £3,500 to do the three things we were asked to do, and I hope that hon. Members will not go back on the staff and on their own sense of decency.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to agriculture, including certain enactments relating to milk and dairies, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the making out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of payments in respect of calves born during the period beginning with the 21st August, 1947, and ending with 1st October, 1949, or such later date not being later than 30th September, 1951, as may be specified under the said Act of the present Session;
(ii) of payments to persons maintaining centres which provide or have provided, during the period beginning with 1st October, 1947, and ending with 31st March, 1951, a service of artificial insemination for cattle from beef bulls of approved breeds;
(iii) of grants or loans to persons in respect of expenses incurred, during the period beginning with 21st August, 1947, and ending with 31st March, 1952, in the conservation of grass and forage crops;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Section eleven of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, to the Agricultural Marketing Fund and the Agricultural Marketing (Scotland) Fund;
(c) the repayment out of moneys so provided of a part, not exceeding three-quarters, of sums paid by a local authority by way of compensation to any person for damage or loss sustained by him by reason of any prohibitions or restrictions on the sale,


supply or use of milk which is infected or suspected of being infected;
(d) the payment out of moneys so provided

(i) of remuneration and allowances to the chairman of any tribunal constituted under the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944, for the hearing of objections to a refusal or cancellation of registration of a dairy farm or dairy farmer;
(ii) of expenses incurred by any Minister in providing or making arrangements for the provision by other persons of facilities for training in agricultural or horticultural occupations;
(iii) of any sums which apart from the said Act of the present Session would be authorised to be paid out of the Diseases of Animals Account;

(e) the payment into the Exchequer—

(i) of sums received by any Minister on giving up possession of land taken for agricultural purposes by virtue of powers conferred by any Defence Regulation, being sums payable by the person to whom possession is or has been given up in respect of growing crops and other matters;
(ii) of sums received by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries representing the proceeds of disposal of stocks of tractors and machinery acquired by him under Section thirty-one of the Agricultural Development Act, 1939;
(iii) of any sums which apart from the said Act of the present Session would be authorised to be paid into the Diseases of Animals Account;
(iv) of any sums standing to the credit of the Cattle Fund."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."—[Mr. Pearson.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I think we might have more explanation from the Government because it seems to me that this is one of the occasions which before we either object or approve of the Bill, we should have something more from the Government. But as apparently there is no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there is"]—and as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is never able to answer these matters, I think it only remains for me to say that I thoroughly object to taking it at this time of night.

Question put, and agreed to.

GAMBIA (DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Mr. Pearson.]

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Dumpleton: I wish to refer to the overseas territory of the Gambia. Earlier this afternoon we have been discussing in some detail Estimates connected with the Colonial Territories, and I wish to concentrate attention upon one particular territory. The Gambia is a comparatively small, but not unimportant territory, comprising some 4,000 square miles and a quarter of a million people. Because of its comparative smallness the people of that territory sometimes have the feeling that they are overlooked and not given the amount of attention by this House that the territory warrants.
Under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, in connection with the 10 years' development plan for the Gambia £1,300,000 has been set aside for development, of which half a million is earmarked for drainage and rehousing and slum clearance in the town of Bathurst. There is no time for me to give the whole of the items included in that development plan, but I would mention one or two which I hope will give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity for telling the House what progress has been made so far in these particular items.
I would refer first of all to the sphere of education, of which there is in the Gambia very great need for considerable development. When I was there a year or two ago there were no schools in the protectorate part of the territory. There was some prospect of teacher training being commenced in the protectorate area. That was dependent upon the recruitment of additional education officers from this country. I should like to know whether those additional officers have been obtained so that the important work of teacher training can be proceeded with as a prelude to the extension of education. There is also a great need in the Gambia as elsewhere in Colonial territories, for emphasis upon technical educational training so that the requisite number of artisans and trained people can be provided to carry out the work involved in the development schemes.
With that brief reference to education upon which the successful completion of many of the development schemes will depend, I pass to the subject of nutrition. This in the Gambia and elsewhere is of great importance to the people themselves, many of whom are living in a state of malnutrition suffering from deficiency diseases because of the lack of nutrition which they have suffered for generations. I should like to pay tribute to the valuable work done in the field of nutritional work and development by Dr. Platt and his team of helpers. In Command Paper 7433, the last agricultural annual report, reference is made to a field station at Fajara and a field working party in the Gambia in addition to the experimental demonstration area for the mechanised production of groundnuts and cereals. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can give an indication of what progress has been made with that research station and experimental pilot scheme since the last agricultural annual report was published.
Another important subject is that of hospitals, for which there is a very great need. When I was last there, there was a proposal for the rebuilding of the hospital in Bathurst and the building of a new hospital in the Protectorate. They are very badly needed. The total number of hospital beds available for a population of 250,000 people was only 156, or one bed to each 1,660 people. There was a most urgent need. One realises that in a country like the Gambia, as in so many others in Africa and other parts of the Colonial Empire, the whole basis for this development depends upon agriculture. In bygone years this fact does not appear to have been realised sufficiently. The annual expenditure on agricultural development for the ten years ending in 1945 amounted to only 2.25 per cent. of the total expenditure.
But research, experiments and plans have been made during the past few years. For instance, experiments have been carried out which have proved that the Gambian groundnut is as good as any. Schemes are in being, or in contemplation, for the production of rice. There is the Development Corporation's scheme for the production of poultry and eggs about which perhaps the Under-Secretary could tell us something. There

is in my view a need for considerably improved research and development to be carried on to see if it is possible to exploit the resources of the Gambia River in freshwater fisheries as well as sea fisheries. These fisheries, if developed, could make a greater contribution to solving the nutritional problem of the people of those territories, as well as providing extra economic health.
A very important part of the development programme of the Gambia is in the rebuilding, the laying-out, town planning and slum clearance of the capital town of Bathurst. We have inherited from the past a tremendous problem. The town is terribly overcrowded and is built on a low sandbank where there is no room for expansion. The population has been drifting in over the years from the protectorate area, and there is a great deal of overcrowding in the town. The only practicable solution is to build a new town elsewhere, and that has been provided for by the laying-out of an area at Kombo St. Mary. A report published in 1946 by the Gambian Government suggests that various schemes have been discussed, put forward, revised and put forward again for the drainage and lay-out of the Kombo St. Mary area. It is a story of frustration, and one hopes that we are now going to make an advance and some concrete progress with that scheme.
One of the greatest disappointments which those concerned about the development of Gambia have suffered in the past few years has been in connection with the airport. It was hoped that the airport there would provide an important station on the air routes to West Africa and across to South America, and it has taken a long time to reach a decision on the future of that airport. If it could be fitted into the scheme of the overseas airways, it would be of considerable economic advantage to the territory. I wonder if the Under-Secretary is in a position tonight to tell us anything about its future.
There is one comparatively small matter on which I should like to close. We have in the last two years instituted a new constitution in the Gambia, and they are now in the second year of that new constitution, by means of which they are moving further along the road towards democratic self-government with a greater voice in their own affairs. They


have now become eligible for admission to the Empire Parliamentary Association, and there is a Legislative Council upon which Africans are taking their part. In his last speech to the Legislative Council, the Governor mentioned the need for a Mace as a symbol of their political advancement. In connection with a new Dominion which recently took steps towards gaining self-government, we made a demonstration which I feel should be extended to these other territories which are now moving along the road towards responsible self-government.
Finally, anyone who is acquainted with affairs in territories like the Gambia and other Colonies could hardly speak on this subject without paying tribute to the members of the Colonial Service, both the administrative officers and specialist-officers whom I found working together as teams—not in their own watertight compartments, but medical officers and other officers getting together to see how the problems of the territory overlap, how they could be worked out and how the development programme could be pushed forward. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us how they are getting on.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Vane: I do not wish to take up more than two minutes, but I should like to press the Parliamentary Secretary to let us have some more information about the poultry scheme. Stories are beginning to reach this country that all is far from well. We hear stories of friction between the staff of this venture and the Colonial servants responsible for the territory. We hear that all is not happy under the manager of this scheme who, I believe, is an American. Without wishing to say anything against Americans, I think it is a pity that someone British has not been found to head that venture.
We are told that eggs are being brought over from America at a dollar a time, and the cost of heavy air freight in addition. Considering that America has been riddled with fowl pest for a long time, I want to know what is wrong with British eggs at a few pence each. There are too many stories dealing with inadequate planning of the plant, for this matter to be overlooked. We hear of such things as the wrong tractors, the wrong

tools, and also complaints about the method of jungle clearance which is said by many people of experience to be likely to lead to erosion, since no felt of greenery is being left across the area which is cleared.

10.17 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: There are now only two or three minutes at my disposal, so I confine myself to asking a number of questions. The Gambia appears to me an almost classic example of one of our small Colonies. As we survey the field as we are trying to do now, and as we have done in previous Debates, there are one or two characteristics which seem to be general and are perhaps dangerous. One is the tendency for indigenous native folk, who at one time must have fed themselves, to rely upon importing feedingstuffs in the last few years. The Gambia, like other small Colonies, is helping us very much indeed with exports of groundnuts from which we process oil. That leads me to one or two questions which I would like to put.
First, rice is obviously the indigenous food of the inhabitants, and there is evidence latterly of rice having to be imported for them. Is rice still regarded, to use their expression, as "women's work," or are the men being persuaded to cultivate their own rice? Next, what hopes are there for the people in the Gambia providing themselves with enough fat in the form of butter? Has any progress been made with the provision for refrigeration? Another very important question is: are those "strange farmers," as they are called, still coming in to carry on the economy of the country in the provision of groundnuts? Is there any hope of settled mixed farming being carried on?
Lastly, during the war the Gambia, which is at the narrowest point of the Atlantic, was very important as a strategical point for the Navy, Army and Air Force. My information is that the B.O.A.C. airport has now been closed down. That airport certainly helped the people there to have a visible balance of trade in their favour. Is there any hope of it being reopened?

10.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend


the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) for raising this matter, for it is not often that these small Colonies such as Gambia are discussed in this House. Gambia is a very old Colony, and a very vital one in many respects, for strategic reasons and other reasons. Therefore, I personally welcome the consideration which this House is giving to this Colony tonight. Hon. Members have touched upon various problems arising from life in the Gambia, but the main problem, the ones that are always present, are twofold—first the backwardness of the social services, and second, the dangerous economic dependence on one export crop, namely groundnuts.
As to the first problem. The Protectorate is probably educationally the least advanced of any territory in British West Africa. It is certainly about the most disease ridden. There are in the small population of less than 250,000 about 6,000 lepers; there are also 10,000 people suffering from trypanosomiasis. The malaria parasitic rate is somewhere about 55 per cent., and this disease has a definite effect upon the manpower position of the Colony—upon the number of trained and healthy people. We have heard tonight about the overcrowding of the island of St. Mary, site of the capital, Bathurst. That is another factor which has to be taken into consideration. The island is five feet below high water mark and flanked by malarial swamps. The population has risen from 9,000 in 1921 to 21,000 in 1944. We see that, small though the Gambia is, and awkardly placed along 10 kilometres on each side of the River Gambia for 200 miles, it is not short of problems.
As to the second main problem, dependence upon one export crop, this dependence upon groundnuts results in inadequacy of food supplies and a badly balanced diet. Furthermore, it exposes the Gambian economy to the vagaries of world prices over a series of years. It happens now that the price of groundnuts is high. Our policy, therefore, is aimed at resolving those main problems, when we think that the minor ones will lessen in consequence. We aim first to diversify the diet of the Colony by growing rice and other foodstuffs for home consumption, and, perhaps, later for export.

We aim to encourage an interest in the Gambia in the development of other enterprises of different types, either through the Colonial Development Corporation or otherwise. We hope to develop education and health services, especially in the Protectorate, and we aim to improve conditions in Bathurst by town drainage and resettlement of part of its population.
In dealing with the specific points put to me I should like to say that, as regards rice, the West African Rice Mission recommended the mechanised rice scheme in the Middle Gambia and thought there would be 36,000 acres suitable. We are now examining this question. The Governor, who is showing tremendous interest in the development of his territory, is going into it as a matter of the utmost urgency. There are problems to be worked out before Gambian rice can be obtained, but they are being worked out as a matter of urgency. Another recommendation was the growing of dry season crops in the valleys and tributaries of the upper reaches of the Gambia River. That is also being investigated. There is one bright spot here. Usually the transportation of cheap crops like rice is a big problem and expensive, but in this case, of course, the River Gambia provides the method of transport. I am glad to say that rice production has increased already from 14,000 tons in 1939 to 20,000 tons in 1947, and Gambia is now practically self-supporting. As for groundnuts, last year was the best year since 1934, which was the peak year, and the crop was 70,500 tons.
In reply to the hon. Member for St. Albans I can say that we are hoping to introduce mixed farming, possibly through the assistance of the Co-operative societies, and there is a co-operative officer now investigating that project. The hon. Member also asked me about the fisheries. The Governor is hoping to develop the fisheries industry. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) asked me a question regarding the poultry scheme, and gave what I thought was a rather gloomy picture of the matter. The Colonial Development Corporation have commenced the project and 10,000 acres of bush are being cleared to grow coarse grains and sorghum. The poultry establishment is erected and will be run on


modern commercial and scientific lines to produce dressed poultry and eggs.

Mr. Vane: Can the hon. Gentleman say where the stock is coming from?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I understand that a certain number of the eggs have arrived from the United States, but I have no details as to that matter. We believe that this scheme can contribute to the raising of the standard of living and widen the scope of employment. Mr. Phillips, the gentleman in charge, has been criticised on the rather odd grounds that he is an American. As a matter of fact, Mr. Phillips was recruited by Lord Trefgarne in the Bahamas. He is an expert on this particular type of work and was brought over to start the scheme off and get it running. I am glad to say that 35 others from the Bahamas have joined him there and are training the Africans in this very specialised type of work. There is no question of exploitation. This is one of the first projects of the Colonial Development Corporation in this direction. I am glad that it has been started in probably one of the smallest Colonies and I hope that it will provide an enormous enhancement to their economic strength.

Mr. Vane: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us about the tenure of the land?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. Gentleman had better put down a Question, as I have not much time now. On the question of education, about which I was asked by the hon. Member for St. Albans, there has been an increase in the number of education officers from two to five, and three of these officers will train the staff of the teachers training school which it is planned to open next year in the Protectorate, when it is hoped to have 30 teachers under training. This will be the first teachers training institution in Gambia, and it is primarily intended for the people of the Protectorate. Technical education is also being looked after by the Public Utilities Department. The hon. Member also asked about health. Gambia has been allocated £264,000 from the Colonial Development Fund of which £80,000 has been allocated to the Victoria Hospital, thereby increasing its bed capacity to 178. The field working party of which the hon. Member spoke which is supported by the

Nutritional Research Unit in London, has started work on the Gambia River and is making a detailed inquiry into the agricultural, nutritional, medical and economic conditions of the people in the surrounding areas.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) asked me about the Yundum Airport. This is at present served by "Dove" aircraft of the West African Airways Corporation which operates a coastal service from Lagos-Accra-Freetown to Bathurst. It takes about two days' flight. The airport used to be used by the international airlines, including the British South American Airways Corporation, but these aircraft now use Dakar and retain Yundum as an alternative. Such liability as His Majesty's Government have in respect of Yundum may shortly come to an end, but we are now in consultation with the Ministry of Civil Aviation with regard to the future of the airport. The Ministry is not entirely convinced that its importance is sufficient to justify the considerable expense in capital equipment and maintenance that is involved. However, there is now a technical mission from the Ministry of Civil Aviation in the Gambia surveying the British South American flying boat route—at least they recently visited the Gambia—and it is possible that it will be used if a flying boat service goes that particular way. I cannot say definitely whether it will be or not until we know the results of their survey.
Finally, may I say that for the development of the Gambia £500,000 has been set aside from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund to develop the Bathurst town area and for the resettlement of the population; £150,000 is being spent on three drainage schemes, and there is a further scheme to reclaim 32 square miles of malarial marshes. That scheme is being examined by consulting engineers who will advise us on its implementation. I think the House will see that in spite of its problems, Bathurst with our assistance, has every intention of making strenuous efforts to be a happy and prosperous community.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.